Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Carpet Sales (Advertisements)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to institute proceedings against a company, details of which he has been sent by the hon. Member for Swindon, which has been issuing fraudulent advertisements regarding the sale of carpets.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): My right hon. Friend has no authority to give the Commissioner of Police any such instructions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation? Here is a most dishonest racket being perpetrated by fly-by-night carpet dealers who are advertising their goods under all sorts of misleading descriptions throughout the country. As I understand it, the only reason why they are not prosecuted is that they have no fixed business addresses. Will not the Minister of State have a word with his right hon. Friend and the Board of Trade to see whether this fraud can be stopped?

Mr. Renton: If any members of the public have any evidence of a fraudulent activity they should bring it to the notice of a chief officer of police. But this matter, so far as I have been able to find out, is not considered by the prosecuting authority to be of good foundation for the institution of proceedings. If the hon. Gentleman has any further information then, of course, the Commissioner would be glad to consider it.

Juvenile Courts (Children Beyond Control)

Mr. A. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children, under the ages of 16 and 17 years, respectively, were found by juvenile courts in England and Wales to be beyond control, during the period 1st January to 30th June, 1961; and how many of these children, respectively, were brought before such courts as a result of proceedings initiated by their own parents.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): As the Answer is somewhat complicated I propose, with permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Brown: Does not the Minister agree with recommendation No. 19 of the Ingleby Committee which states that a parent's power to bring his child before a juvenile court on the ground that the child is beyond control should be revoked? Does not he further agree that the use of Section 64 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933—whereby parents do this, which has become known as the "Sophie treatment"—should also be revoked?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The question of who should have the power in the future to bring children before a juvenile court is, of course, a matter of some controversy. My right hon. Friend is studying this with great care and he hopes to implement the main proposals of the Ingleby Report as soon as possible.

Following is the Answer:
Proceedings in respect of children considered to be beyond control may be brought under any one of several statutory provisions according to the circumstances of the case. Some cases are brought under Section 62 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 (which relates to children in need of care and protection), but there is no means of knowing in how many of these the primary ground of the application was that the child or young person was beyond control. In the only proceedings for which separate statistics are available—those under Sections 64, 65 and 84 (8) of the 1933 Act—296 orders were made under these three sections during the six months to 30th June last in respect of children under 16 years of age; and of that number 274 were the result of proceedings brought by a parent or guardian under Section 64 of the Act. The remainder were brought by local authorities in respect of children or


young persons in their care. In respect of children who had attained the age of 16 years but not yet 17, 129 orders were made, of which 118 resulted from proceedings brought by a parent or guardian under Section 64, and the remainder from proceedings brought by local authorities. It would not be safe, however, to assume on the basis of the figures for Sections 64, 65 and 84 (8) alone that the great majority of "beyond control" applications are made by parents.

Firearms (Young Persons)

Commander Kerans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to ban the sale of firearms to young persons by mail order firms.

Mr. Renton: It is already an offence to sell a firearm to a person whom the vendor knows or has reasonable grounds for believing to be under 17. It is also an offence for a person under 17 to purchase a firearm. These provisions apply whether the transaction takes place by post or otherwise.

Commander Kerans: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is a pernicious habit which undoubtedly leads to firearms getting into the wrong hands, especially of youths? Will he look into this matter again to try to stop this practice?

Mr. Renton: If a person under the age of 17 made some misrepresentation for the purpose of buying a firearm the law could deal with him. It would not be reasonable to make the vendor liable in respect of such a misrepresentation.

Mr. Fletcher: Cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman do something to ensure that when firearms are offered for sale by mail order firms it is brought prominently to the attention of both the vendors and advertisers—and also the potential purchasers—that the purchase of them by young persons is an offence and fraught with great danger?

Mr. Renton: I think that the provisions of the law are fairly well known, and I have no doubt that the publicity which may be given to these questions and answers will help to enable people to understand them still better.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that one of the difficulties is that a person over the age of 17 can purchase a firearm and hand it over to a younger

person without a licence? Many of these cases come into the courts and difficulties are created because a certificate is not issued, and there is no need for one legally, because the original purchaser is over the age of 17.

Mr. Renton: I wonder if the hon. Lady appreciates that this matter really is significant only in relation to air guns and shot guns? A firearms certificate is issued—and this is rarely done—by a chief officer of police and would be necessary for the purchase of a more dangerous weapon.

Fireworks

Commander Kerans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now consider the revision of present legislation on fireworks to limit their sale to responsible corporations and other bodies, bearing in mind the increasing danger to young persons.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the further evidence sent to him by the Booth Hall Children's Hospital, Manchester, on 9th November, following that sent to him in February, 1961, of the severe burns caused to children by fireworks; and if he will now introduce legislation to restrict the general sale of fireworks and to confine their use to organised displays by responsible bodies.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the 3,719 firework casualties treated in English hospitals between 4th and 7th November, 1961, he will obtain and publish detailed statistics of the damage caused by the misuse of fireworks in early November, 1961, and take steps to minimise injury to persons and damage to property in November, 1962.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation he has decided to introduce to restrict the sale of fireworks.

Mr. Renton: It would not be practicable to obtain statistics of the damage to property caused by the discharge of fireworks last November, but my right hon. Friend shares the concern of hon. Members at the number of personal injuries which were caused. The suggestion that


the general sale of fireworks should be prohibited and that their discharge should be confined to organised displays by responsible bodies involves some practical difficulties, and my right hon. Friend would, in any event, be reluctant to interfere with the enjoyment given by the many properly-conducted family firework parties. My right hon. Friend is studying the information from hospitals obtained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and will consult the police and others concerned in the hope of finding some practicable ways of reducing the number of accidents.

Commander Kerans: But the crux of the whole problem is the ability of youngsters to walk into a shop and purchase fireworks. Cannot the penalties on these vendors be increased, so as to prevent fireworks getting into the hands of the wrong persons?

Mr. Renton: It is already an offence to sell fireworks to children under 13, or for anyone to let off fireworks in the street. I must say, of course, that both of these provisions have proved difficult to enforce. We are concerned about these accidents and are considering how they can be further prevented, but without placing intolerable restrictions on the whole of the community.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite the difficulties, in most States of the United States and in the Republic of Ireland there is a total prohibition of the sale of fireworks to the general public, with the result that there has been a considerable reduction in the number of accidents? Has his attention not been drawn to the very strong feeling of hospitals, particularly the children's hospitals—and especially the children's hospital in my constituency—which deal with burns, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and of many other bodies that education in safety has failed? As 439 people were treated as in-patients, and 3,280 as out-patients in the period 4th-7th November last, is not legislation necessary?

Mr. Renton: While we do not, of course, ignore the laws of other countries, we have to remember that those laws would not necessarily be

suited to the traditions and temperament of our people. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would wish to study the information he has given.

Mr. Boyden: Would not the Minister of State agree that one of the things to do is to get his scientific advisers to consult the firework manufacturers who, surely, have no more interest in causing damage and casualties than has anyone else? Cannot he proceed on those lines?

Mr. Renton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, in fact, we are examining a number of suggestions for preventing accidents at the moment. Some of those suggestions involve improvements in the design and manufacture of fireworks, and if examination shows that they would make a useful contribution to the solution of the problem we shall get in touch with the manufacturers, and would hope for their co-operation.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that these dangerous, futile and wasteful celebrations of Guy Fawke's Day are an unnecessary menace to life and limb and that, in view of the large number of hospital cases resulting each year from the celebration of this anniversary, the time has now come for this menace to life and limb, and to the nerves of old people and animals, to be brought to an end, despite the bloodthirstiness of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Renton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that those points are covered by the answers I have already given.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the tenor of some questions from both sides of the House, would the Minister of State give an assurance that the Home Office will not interfere with the traditional enjoyment of Guy Fawke's night?

Licensed Premises (Sunday Opening)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to provide for local options on the Sunday opening of licensed premises in England as in Wales.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: No, Sir.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that I am not at all surprised by his reply? Since the majority of Welsh Members did not want local option in Wales but had it thrust on them by the English Members, does he not think it unreasonable to withhold from the English the same liberty that he extends to the Welsh? is he not aware that, if he pursued the same stupid policy in England as has been pursued in Wales, he would have the same stupid result?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The solicitude of the hon. Member for the welfare of the English is very commendable, but we have had Sunday opening of licensed premises in this country for a very long time and I do not think that we want to interfere with that arrangement.

Television Programmes (Crime)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communication he has received from the Independent Television Authority regarding an inquiry into the influence of television programmes on crime; what reply he has made; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am grateful for the proposals which have been made to me by the Chairman of the Independent Television Authority for an inquiry into the impact of television on society. I have been studying them in the light of the available information about other research in this field. I hope to arrange further discussions both with the Independent Television Authority and with the British Broadcasting Corporation, and in due course I shall make a further statement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure that the House will welcome the Home Secretary's assurance that this is an important matter and that an inquiry would be useful, but would he not agree that the inquiry would be very much more useful if it were conducted under auspices that could be shown to be, and generally seen to be, entirely impartial?

Mr. Butler: I see no reason why an inquiry should not be conducted in such circumstances.

Security

Mr. Chataway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the security requirements of the United Kingdom are fully safeguarded as regards aliens entering the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic, in view of disclosures earlier in the year concerning security.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I consider that the present arrangements afford reasonable protection against the risks which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Chataway: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is absolutely no control whatever over any aliens entering this country from the Irish Republic? Does he think that, with the rather poor reputation for security that we have inevitably acquired over the last eighteen months, we can afford to have a substantial part of our immigration control handed over to the Irish Republic which must, after all, have criteria rather different from ours, since it is a neutral country?

Mr. Butler: For some time there has been what may be described as an acceptable measure of security, thanks to immigration control in the Republic. As far as we can see, those arrangements have been operating satisfactorily and I should not like to disturb them.

Telephone Calls (Interception)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of interceptions of telephone calls authorised by him, year by year, to the most appropriate date, since the publication of the Birkett Committee Report of 1957.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It would not be in the public interest to give the figures for which the hon. Member asks.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not surprised by that Answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why ask a silly Question?" Because I wanted to ask a supplementary question. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that this process is under proper control, and can he state categorically that nobody, no matter who, is allowed to


tap anyone else's telephone calls without his explicit consent?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Corn-miner of Privy Councillors, when he will see that the operation of this control has been carried on according to the recommendations there made. I think that is sufficient security in answer to his question.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Home Secretary say whether he is satisfied that there have not been any interceptions of telephone calls that he ought to have authorised but that have not, in fact, been authorised by him?

Mr. Butler: I think that I have done my best.

Mr. M. Foot: Can the Home Secretary say what conceivable reason in the public interest there can be for not giving the number of interceptions? The Question says nothing about how they are done.

Mr. Speaker: I think that supplementary question is out of order, because it is our practice to be bound by, and for the Chair to support, the refusal of a Minister to answer a Question on grounds of public interest in relation to security.

Prison Service (Recruitment)

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in recruiting for the prison service.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Good progress is being made and we trust it will continue. There were 9,200 applicants for posts in the prison officer grades in 1961, compared with 4,438 in 1960. The national advertising campaign which ended last December has so far produced 3,254. It is too early to say how many trained officers will result from these applications.
The last training class at Wakefield produced 110 trained officers, compared with 41 from the corresponding class last year. A second training school is being set up in Falfield, in Gloucestershire, to help Wakefield to cope with the increased number of recruits selected for final training.

Mr. Holland: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for a more encouraging reply than I expected. Does he consider that the present measures will continue to ensure an adequate rate of recruitment, not only to overcome the prison staffing shortage, but also to meet the requirements of the expansion of prison accommodation that is under way?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We have very much in mind not only the need to man the new prisons as they come in, but also the effect of the prospective introduction of an 11-day working fortnight instead of the 12-day fortnight as at present. All these things will require more manpower, and we are very glad that increased manpower seems to be coming forward.

Long-Term Prisoners (Hostel Scheme)

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the effectiveness of the hostel system of rehabilitation for long-term prisoners.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We believe that the hostel scheme for long-term prisoners is most effective. Research is being planned, but since it must be based on a study of a substantial number of cases over a prolonged period, its results cannot be available for some time. Of 308 men and 13 women discharged from a hostel since the scheme was started in 1958, 36 men and no women are known to have been reconvicted by 30th September, 1961.

Mr. Holland: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the success—I think that we can call it a success—of the hostel system so far is very largely due to the dedicated work and enthusiasm of the prison officers responsible for operating it?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes, indeed. Tribute should certainly be paid to them. Of course, we are hoping to open more hostels during the present year.

Nuclear Weapons (Fire Hazard)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue to civil defence personnel and


local authorities the information concerning the effects of nuclear bombing and the subsequent fire-storms, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Willesden, West.

Mr. Renton: Information about the fire hazard and other effects of nuclear weapons is already available in official publications.

Mr. Pavitt: Is not the Minister of State aware that the dissemination of facts of this kind, which at the moment are published only in the New Statesman, would do much to make the public-spirited Civil Defence action at present less of a well-meaning effort or charade? Is he also aware that the Senate in America has given far wider dissemination of this information than we have? Would he consider having an organisation like the Holifield Commission to look into this matter?

Mr. Renton: I think that the hon. Gentleman should inform himself before describing the Civil Defence effort as a charade. The article in question did not in fact add to our information and it was in some respects incomplete. It did not mention a number of important factors, such as meteorological conditions and types of building construction, which tend to support different conclusions. May I say that we welcome all discussion of these matters.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister of State prepare a popular version of these official documents on the effect of nuclear weapons, which can be given very wide distribution in public libraries and elsewhere?

Mr. Renton: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the small pamphlets the "Hydrogen Bomb", and the one got out last year, "Civil Defence Today". Those pamphlets give in brief form a very clear picture of what might happen.

Sir J. Maitland: Is it not a fact that these pamphlets cannot be easily obtained by the public? One cannot get them at station bookstalls or similar places. What is the objection to putting these pamphlets into ordinary circulation and allowing people to buy them and have the opportunity of reading them? Even if they may not make

complete sense, they would give the public an opportunity of seeing what the situation really is, according to the best knowledge that the Government have.

Mr. Renton: Some of these pamphlets have been on sale from time to time at bookstalls, and I think that I am right in saying that they can be obtained from local Civil Defence headquarters. I will certainly consider further my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Murders

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many cases of murder were known to the police in 1961; and what were the corresponding figures for the two previous years.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The number of murders known to the police in England and Wales in 1961 was 152. The corresponding figures for 1960 and 1959 were respectively 153 and 149.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is grave concern outside the House about the number of murders and the nature of the murders committed recently, and is he satisfied that his present policy of dealing with this type of crime is producing the best possible results?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In fact, the number of murders is remarkably stable from one year to another. I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind when he says that the policy is not working.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that I made no such statement? I merely asked him whether he was satisfied that the present policy—I am not criticising it—is producing the best results.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: One can never be satisfied so long as there are any murders at all.

Jury Service

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the anomalies which exist at present in the selection for jury service in general and particularly in regard to the selection of women jurors; and what legislative proposals he has to deal with the situation.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My right hon. Friend is aware of certain criticisms of the present methods of selection of jurors, but any changes in the law would require very careful consideration and he can hold out no prospect of early legislation.

Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that his reply will be received with very considerable disappointment by those who believe, and I think are correct in their belief, that the vast majority of the adult population in this country is not eligible for jury service? There is an anomaly of a very serious nature in that only a householder or property owner, whether a man or a woman, is entitled to be called, in spite of the tendency nowadays for a woman sometimes to have possession of a house, in which case her husband is not entitled to go on to the jury, or a man to have possession, in which case the wife is not entitled to go on the jury? Does he not think that a very simple alteration of the law might meet that?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It would be simple but whether it would be desirable is a different question. For a defence of the present system of recruitment of jurors, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Hamlyn Lectures of Mr. Justice Devlin, as he then was.

Prisons (Education Expenditure)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why expenditure on education in prisons, Borstals, and detention centres is being cut; what facilities will cease to be available; and what annual saving he expects to achieve.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the savings he will effect by restricting educational activities at Wandsworth Prison and in prisons generally.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No reduction in total expenditure on education in prisons, amounting in the present financial year to £341,500, is at present contemplated. But it has been decided that in the present financial situation any substantial increase in 1962–3 must be avoided.
It will therefore be necessary, in order to offset increased costs, to effect a slight reduction in the number and duration of evening classes from next summer term. Details are being worked out.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the Answer in fact mean that, taking into account the rising costs, there will be a restriction or a reduction in educational activities in places where educational activities are most important as a factor in countering crime and effecting the reform of people who have committed crime? Would not the Home Secretary, in view of the very small sum of money involved, reconsider this, when in fact a large expansion of educational activities in prisons, etc. is called for?

Mr. Butler: Unfortunately, every section of the Estimates had to take its share of the cuts. There is no actual cut in the total amount. I do not think that the number of class hours reduced will be very serious. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will let him have details of the revised programe.

Mr. Lipton: The Home Secretary has not answered my Question about the effect in Wandsworth Prison if these small and rather dismal economies are made. Does he not realise that we probably derive more value from the educational work we do in our prisons than from any other aspect or phase of our prison administration?

Mr. Butler: There have been adjustments since the original instruction was sent out, and I hope that at Wandsworth and elsewhere the effect of its implementation will not be unduly serious.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates of Her Majesty's prisons desiring and permitted to attend educational classes are unable to do so because of inadequate facilities; and what effect the proposed cuts of the Prison Commissioners will have in the coming financial year on existing educational provision.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Some classes have waiting lists and others are difficult to fill; I regret that detailed information is not available. Educational facilities have been greatly enlarged in recent years, with a threefold increase in expenditure since 1953–54.
For the measures proposed in 1962–63, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to Questions by the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and Brixton (Mr. Lipton) today.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the so-called limitation in the future look very silly against the so-called liberal reforms which the right hon. Gentleman is making? Can he say whether every local prison and every specialist establishment has a full-time tutor organiser or educational officer?

Mr. Butler: I should want notice of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, which I Should be glad to answer. I will inform him of the answer, in any case. In answer to the earlier part of his supplementary question, there has been a threefold increase in the last six or seven years, and that is a great improvement. I am naturally sorry that the total has to remain at this level this year, and we must see what we can do to improve on it.

Mr. Callaghan: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered recently the number of men who are still three to a cell in a number of our gaols? Since they are shut up, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, for so many hours during the evening, night and early morning, is any cut at all justified in these educational classes, which at least enable them to do something useful in the evenings?

Mr. Butler: Fortunately, the cuts will be marginal in certain summer classes for a few hours, but I realise the importance of getting men out of the cells, and that is why we have done so much recently for work as well as for education.

Civil Defence

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay a White Paper before the House explaining the principles on which Her Majesty's Government's policy on Civil Defence is based, and showing the main items of expenditure to which £18 million were allocated during the fiscal year, 1961–62.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The basis of our Civil Defence organisation is well known and I do not think that a White Paper is necessary at present. Information about home defence expenditure in this financial year is available in the Report on Defence, 1961; and it is intended to deal with the subject in the corresponding Report for 1962.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman in the forthcoming Report make quite plain what is the policy of the Government in regard to such matters as early warnings, evacuation of cities and shelter against 10-megaton bombs?

Mr. Butler: We shall do our best in the coming Defence White Paper to answer as much as we can of the right hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is many years now—five years, I think—since we had an adequate debate on Civil Defence? Is it not time that the House had an opportunity to discuss this serious problem? May we expect his co-operation in getting it?

Mr. Butler: I am always ready to take part in debate. It is a matter for the arrangement of the business of the House.

Remand Homes (Boys)

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many boys were held in remand homes awaiting places in approved schools during the last six months of 1961; and what proposals he has for taking into account time spent in remand homes while waiting for vacancies in approved schools towards completion of sentence.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The total figure for the last six months of 1961 is not yet available, but on 31st December there were 396 boys in remand homes awaiting places in approved schools. The maximum period for which a boy may legally be detained in an approved school runs from the date the approved school order and includes any time spent in a remand home while awaiting admission to a school. Managers of approved schools have a statutory duty to release a boy as soon as he has made sufficient progress in his training.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the last part of his Answer, but does not he agree that much strain is put on the staffs of remand homes by these boys being held there because places in approved schools are not available? Can he hold out any hope of the waiting list being cleared in due course?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There is a strain on the staffs and other people connected with remand homes as a result of the blockage of remand homes. Fortunately, the position is improving.
It is planned to provide between 350 and 400 additional approved school places for boys in the present year, with a further expansion of much the same kind in the following year. We think that this will go a long way to ease the blockage.

Accidents in the Home

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent study he has made of the causes of accidents in the home; and what new proposals he has to reduce the number of those accidents.

Mr. Renton: The main cause of accidents in the home is human frailty in the form of ignorance, carelessness and physical disability. This is being combated by education and publicity. A secondary cause is faulty design of appliances, and whenever an example of bad design or construction is brought to notice steps are taken, so far as is reasonably practicable, to have it remedied.

Mr. Spriggs: Does not the Minister realise that severe shock and pain is suffered when infants are injured or meet an early death as a result of burns in the home, and is not he aware that it would be well worth while the Government requiring by regulation the manufacture of night-wear garments from non-flammable materials only? If he saved only one life a year by the enforcement of such a regulation, would it not be well worth while?

Mr. Renton: There is a later Question on the Order Paper dealing with regulations. More than half of the fatal accidents in the home occur to people over 75, and many of those accidents are due to the old people falling down.

Consumer Protection (Regulations)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he now has for making regulations under the Consumer Protection Act, 1961, other than safety regulations concerning oil heaters and electrical appliances.

Mr. Renton: None at present.

Mrs. Slater: It is a long time since we passed the last Consumer Protection Act and had the Interim Report of the Molony Committee. Is it not time that we had action from the Minister's Department, as was promised during the Committee stage of the Bill, to make regulations safeguarding against hazards of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) has just referred?

Mr. Renton: I made clear during the passage of the Bill that it would not be followed by a large number of regulations. That view was confirmed in the Interim Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, which said that the Committee did not envisage that the power to make regulations would need to be exercised with great frequency.
The real point here is that, when a danger comes to our notice, we get in touch with the manufacturers, and the manufacturers have so far always been willing to co-operate in trying to establish the cause and overcome the danger when it is due to faulty design or in warning the public when it is due to misuse.

Mr. Mason: Is it not time that the Minister did something more positive instead of pouring out a torrent of Civil Service verbiage designed to stifle the natural exuberance of children? Why does not he try to be more positive and introduce regulations compelling manufacturers of dangerous articles used in the home to make their products safe rather than try to stifle the natural activities of children?

Mr. Renton: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if it is possible to rectify a fault without regulation, it is better not to have the regulation.

Mrs. Slater: This is a very important subject. Will the Minister read again


what is said on page 11, of the Interim Report, where it is definitely suggested that some regulations should be introduced to provide safeguards against the hazards which are presented by all kinds of modern inventions, materials and appliances? Will he look at the matter again and see not so much how narrow he can make the regulations but how effective they might be?

Mr. Renton: The Report makes certain recommendations for somewhat limited action, and we have that in mind.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he now has for making regulations under the Consumer Protection Act, 1961, which would make electrical appliances safe for the public.

Mr. Renton: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 21st December to a Question by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling).

Mrs. Slater: That reply given to my hon. Friend said, in effect, that the Government were not prepared to do anything. Is the Minister aware that both Which? and Shopper's Guide have recently reported on such articles as electric fire lighters and electric blankets and the dangers involved in their use? Does he know also that there are on the market even sewing machines which are not always safe for use and that the consumer is confronted by the hazard of other unsafe electrical appliances?

Mr. Renton: The information at our disposal shows quite clearly that scarcely any accidents are due to the faulty design of domestic electric appliances but that those accidents which occur are due to bad fitting or to misuse.

Courts of Summary Jurisdiction (Fines)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long the examination by his Department of fines which can be imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction has continued; and when his new scales will be announced.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: A comprehensive review, involving examination of

several hundreds of small statutory fines in consultation with other Departments, has been in progress since 1957. Substantial progress has been made, but I cannot at present say when it will be possible to introduce legislation on this subject.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that courts of summary jurisdiction are getting extremely tired of housing simple drunks at less than economic cost? Having regard to the increase in crime in many parts of the country, does he not think that, if fines were increased so as to hit people through their pockets, we might be able to deal with the situation much more cogently than we are now, and does he realise that at least the Newcastle bench on which I sit is thoroughly tired of continuing delay in providing for greater fines particularly for the simple crimes?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My hon. Friend is quite right in the principle she puts forward, but the examination of the matter is much more complicated than might appear. It is not possible just to multiply the old fines—some of which go back hundreds of years—by a factor representing the change in the value of money. Some offences may have changed considerably in importance and some of the heavier fines might be quite inappropriate. As regards cases of drunk or drunk and disorderly persons, I agree that the penalties fixed by the Licensing Act, 1872, are inadequate. Perhaps we might have a talk about the quickest way of improving them.

Mr. Peter Baker

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now completed his review of the case of Mr. Peter Baker, a former Member of Parliament, in the light of the new information which has been in the possession of his Department for several months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. I informed Mr. Baker on 30th November that after giving the matter the most earnest consideration I had reached the conclusion that the material which he had submitted to my Department on 29th September did not give grounds which would justify


any action on my part. Mr. Baker subsequently sent me some additional material, which has also been carefully considered, but he has been informed that it would not justify any alteration in my decision.

Mr. Driberg: While appreciating that this is a very complicated and difficult case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has personally looked at the papers and whether he is completely satisfied about every aspect of the case—for instance, about the allegation that Mr. Baker was induced to sign a paper agreeing to plead guilty when he was not in a fit physical or mental state to do so?

Mr. Butler: I have personally examined the papers which, as the hon. Gentleman realises, are somewhat voluminous. It is obviously a very difficult case, but I cannot make any further observation except that I am afraid that these documents do not justify any action on my part.

Armed Guards (Firearms Certificates)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present policy of his Department in granting firearms certificates for the purpose of enabling banks and other organisations to provide armed guards when valuable property is being transported in the Metropolitan area.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his Question on 25th January.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although there is growing concern about the number of highway robberies, for bank guards to carry firearms would be generally regarded as a retrograde step likely to provoke criminals also to carry firearms? Does his reply mean that he proposes to withdraw certificates already granted for the use of firearms by bank guards?

Mr. Butler: I endeavoured to explain in my Written Answer on 25th January that under the Statute the decision whether such a certificate should be given rests with the chief officer of police. The Commissioner of Police of

the Metropolis acts on the view, with which I agree, that in general firearms are not a suitable means of protection in these cases. At the present moment, that is the statutory position.

Spectacle Frames (Inflammable Materials)

Mr. Dance: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether, in view of the additional evidence which was forwarded to his Department by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove on 20th December, he is considering taking any further action to prohibit the use of inflammable materials in spectacle frames;
(2) whether, as long as cellulose nitrate is allowed to be used in the manufacture of spectacle frames, he will consider introducing a regulation that all such frames, sold in this country, must be clearly stamped with the words "Highly Inflammable."

Mr. Renton: I will discuss these suggestions with the manufacturers of spectacle frames.

Mr. Dance: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that this is a very dangerous matter? Until my glasses caught fire, I had no knowledge that the material used in them was inflammable. Will my hon. and learned Friend consider this matter and take quick action on it? In any case, let us warn the public that in many cases they are wearing gun cotton on the ends of their noses.

Mr. Renton: From my hon. Friend's experience and from the other cases which he has brought to our notice, we feel that we are now justified in approaching the manufacturers with a view to discussing this potential danger with them.

Anti-nuclear Demonstrations (Prisoners)

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons under the age of 21 years were in prison on Christmas Day, 1961, for reasons connected with their part in the anti-nuclear arms demonstrations of 9th December, 1961 and how many of them are still in prison.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Three youths and one girl were in prison on Christmas Day; one youth and one girl were still in custody yesterday.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman regard this as an extremely distressing thing in view of the fact that the maximum penalty for the offences with which these people were charged was a fine of 40s. and that comparatively recently this House enacted legislation which directed the courts not to send people under the age of 21 to prison if there was any other way of dealing with them? Is it not the case that these people in prison were in default of the payment of fines of 40s.? Is not there the greatest possible disparity between the maximum fine laid down by the Statute and the fact that some of them are still in gaol for not having paid it?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: A very simple way of getting out of gaol is to pay the fine.

Mr. Silverman: I think that the House will be grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for explaining the last point, which no doubt had escaped everyone's attention up to the time that he communicated the information to the House. I should like to ask him whether there are methods of compelling defaulters to pay fines other than by keeping them in gaol for three or four months in default of the payment of a fine of 40s.?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This sanction is that which the law courts have imposed, and, of course, my right hon. Friend has no power to interfere with it save for the question of remission, which comes under statutory powers. He has no other power in the matter at all.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Silverman.

Mr. Silverman: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman further—

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to ask the next Question. Perhaps I should have specified it.

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were in prison on Christmas Day, 1961, for refusing to be bound over to keep the peace under the

Act of 1361 or otherwise; how many of these were under 21 years of age; and how many are still in prison.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Twelve males and six females, of whom three youths and one girl were under 21 years of age. Four males and two females were in custody yesterday.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman consider this a complete abuse of this antiquated Statute? Does he consider that we ought in these cases to send people to prison for refusing to promise not to do things for which the maximum penalty, if they had done them, would have been a fine of 40s.? Is not the practice becoming absurd? Has it not become an administrative endeavour by the Home Office and the police authorities to prevent the expression of opinion?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member is trying to repeal this law. If he succeeds in that, a new situation will arise. Until the law is repealed, it will be enforced.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, although it is true that while an Act is in force it should be enforced, this is no good reason for abusing it or for misusing it for political purposes?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There is no question of abusing it for political purposes. The responsibility for these sentences is that of the magistrates and not of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the unsatisfactory Answers to Questions No. 28 and 29, I would like to give notice that I will take an early opportunity of raising them again.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (Home Safety)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the small grant given for home safety activities to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; and if he will increase the amount in future.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is making a grant of £1,500 to the Society during the current financial year and


proposes to make a grant of the same amount in 1962–63. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is making similar grants. These grants are intended to recognise the importance of the Society's home safety work and are not designed to finance any particular part of it.

Mr. Dempsey: Does the Minister realise that for road safety committees, the Department grant-aids the Society to the extent of nearly £100,000, which, no doubt, is necessary? Is he aware, however, that more accidents occur in the home than on the roads but that all that the Society is offered for home safety measures is a paltry £3,000, to be divided between Scotland and England? Does not the Minister believe that the time has come when this amount should be brought up to a more realistic figure?

Mr. Renton: No, Sir. I do not think it right to make a comparison between the degree of Government help in respect of the two types of fatal accident. There is a great distinction between fatal accidents on the road and those in the home, more than half of which occur to people over the age of 75 and, as I said earlier, are largely due to falling down.

Barmitzvahs (Metropolitan Police District)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for special orders of exemption for Barmitzvahs in the Metropolitan Police District have been made in the past three years; and how many have been granted.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I regret that this information is not available.

Wages and Bank Robberies

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many wage snatches have been made known to the police in each of the past three years; what were the annual sums involved; and in how many cases the criminals have been caught.

Mr. Renton: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures for the Metropolitan Police District.

Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister satisfied that all possible steps to deal with this

serious situation are being taken and that the most careful consideration is being given to such methods as might be used to prevent this kind of crime?

Mr. Renton: Yes. The Commissioner is constantly devising new methods to meet this danger. It obviously would not be in the public interest to mention them. I should, however, say that owners also have a part to play and the Commissioner, like other chief officers of police, offers advice to firms which have large packets of wages to be carried. It is hoped that this advice will be followed wherever possible. I hope that publicity may be given to the hon. Member's Question and my Answer.

Following are the figures:


ROBBERIES OF WAGES IN TRANSIT IN THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT


Year
Number of robberies
Number of attempted robberies
Amount stolen
Number of cases in which arrests were made



£



1961
66
12
129,455
11


1960
35
1
47,801
None


1959
34
5
40,079
6

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons concerned in wages and bank robberies in 1961 have been convicted; and in how many cases no persons have been arrested.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such figures as are available. These figures are for the Metropolitan Police District.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Has it occurred to him, however, that when crimes of this character occur, they become front-page news, but that little is reported in the Press about convictions? Could the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Press to ensure that attention is paid to the convictions in order to reassure people that those who commit such crimes are sentenced?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly take note of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Robberies of wages
Total number of cases (including attempted robberies)
Number of cases in which no arrest was made
Number of persons sent for trial
Results


Convicted
Acquitted
Not yet dealt with


In transit
…
78
67*
18
7
4
7


On premises
…
19
14
14
4
3
7


* Includes one case of attempted robbery of a bank guard in a bank van conveying money from a bank to other premises.

Traffic Signals, Parliament Squart (Sessional Order)

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to move the House to amend the Sessional Order to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police now that traffic signals have been installed in Parliament Square; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The traffic signals will be switched off and the junctions will be controlled by police officers up to midnight on any day when the House or its Committees are sitting. If the House is sitting late, the junctions will continue to be controlled by the police until the House rises and for half an hour thereafter. I see no occasion therefore for an amendment of the Sessional Order.

Sir J. Duncan: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he can say how much police manpower is being saved by the installation of these traffic lights?

Mr. Butler: I should want notice for the exact figure, but it clearly affords a considerable help.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Home Secretary make inquiries whether this practice is now of much value or is deemed necessary? It is not observed. In any

Following are the figures for the Metropolitan Police District for 1961:

event, there is a passageway under the road and I have never heard of a Member of Parliament being prevented from attending to his duties by being held up on the crossing. If it is necessary for the better movement of traffic to have traffic lights, might we not forgo this privilege?

Mr. Butler: No. I think that the Sessional Order is best observed by the compromise arrangements which have been reached with the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Aires Braganza

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Aires Braganza was released from detention at London Airport.

Mr. Renton: On 23rd January.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Minister aware that I have put down the Question so that I might correct a misstatement of which I was guilty a week ago? I then said that Mr. Braganza had been given Indian papers and had been allowed to go to Germany. I now am informed that that is not the case and I wish to apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the Civil Service.

Mr. Renton: I appreciate the hon. Member's purpose.

Civil Defence Personnel (Compensation)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation would be payable under his regulations to a Civil Defence volunteer in the event of death while undertaking duties in a peace-time emergency.

Mr. Renton: Dependants of a member of the Civil Defence Corps killed in the course of official duty in peace time would be eligible for the benefits payable under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts subject to the statutory conditions.

Mr. Brockway: Does the Minister regard this as adequate from two points of view? First, these people are volunteers. They are giving this service in their spare time and as a public service. Ought not that to be recognised by additional compensation if their lives are lost? Secondly, is it a good method of recruiting for this service to give this mean compensation which the hon. awl learned Gentleman has announced?

Mr. Renton: Fortunately, these deaths are rare, but they are covered by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries)

FIGURES ARE AVAILABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE LAST SEVEN YEARS. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:


Estimated net inward movement from
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961


West Indies
…
27,550
29,800
23,000
15,000
16,400
49,650 
66,300


East Africa
…
700
700
650
400
150
250
2,650


West Africa
…
1,500
2,000
2,200
950
750
-500
5,450


Cyprus
…
3,450
2,750
1,450
2,700
400
3,200
6,850


Malta
…
300
900
450
150
-350
-1,400
500


Hong Kong
…
300
550
900
200
450
500
2,150


Malaya
…
500
400
700
200
200
-400
700


Singapore
…
100
200
300
-150
-100
-50
950


India
…
5,800
5,600
6,600
6,200
2,950
5,900
23,750


Pakistan
…
1,850
2,050
5,200
4,700
850
2,500
25,100


Ceylon
…
200
600
750
50
-450
-2,000
650

Note.—A minus sign denotes a net outward movement.

Ether

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that ether is being bought from chemists by young people for use as an intoxicant; and if he will take steps to prevent this practice.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My right hon. Friend has seen Press reports of a recent case in which this was alleged to have

Act and any question of the adequacy of the pension scales and supplementary allowances under that Act is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mr. Brockway: Will the Minister bear specially in mind those volunteer workers in the neighbourhood of London Airport and all other airports, who are called when aeroplanes crash and who in such cases are frequently in great danger?

Mr. Renton: I shall, of course, be glad to consider that.

Immigrants

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give, in column form for each year, the net inflow of immigrants for each of the last ten years from the West Indies, East African Territories, West African Territories, Cyprus, Malta, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, India, Pakistan and Ceylon.

Mr. Renton: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

been done, but he has no evidence to suggest that there is any practice calling for preventive measures.

Dr. Johnson: Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend keep this matter under review? Is he aware that whereas this drug can be bought ostensibly for innocent purposes, such as cleaning clothes, it can be a dangerous addiction-inducing, intoxicating drug?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We will certainly keep the matter under review. The pharmaceutical societies have informed us that as a matter of professional honour a chemist would not sell ether unless satisfied that a purchaser wanted it for bona fide purposes and certainly would not give it to children It is true that an ingenious person can use almost any substance for this sort of nefarious purpose if he knows how.

Sir H. Linstead: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any reason to think that this habit is at all widespread and that there is any real abuse in this way?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: No, Sir. We have no reason to believe that there is any widespread abuse.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at Birmingham on 27th January about the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: In that case, why was the Leader of the House authorised to put forward proposals made by the Lord Privy Seal last October which have since been rejected by the Six? For instance, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion that less developed Commonwealth countries and still dependent territories should be associated with the Common Market on terms similar to those of former French overseas territories was made in the January talks and rejected out of hand? Why persist with this kind of thing?

The Prime Minister: I have read the speech carefully and I can see nothing in it which is out of line with the Government's policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL (MEETING)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to meet the Secretary-General

of the United Nations during his forthcoming visit to New York to address the annual dinner of the American Publishers' Association.

The Prime Minister: I am looking forward with pleasure to meeting U Thant when I go to New York in April.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the recent regrettable speech by the Foreign Secretary, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to renew to the Secretary-General the pledge in the Queen's Speech that the Government will give resolute support to the United Nations, and tell him that they think it essential for the future of the world that its authority should be sustained?

The Prime Minister: I do not, of course, accept anything which the right hon. Gentleman said in criticism of my noble Friend. It seems to me that he is anticipating the speech which, no doubt, he will deliver on Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY—Debate on an Opposition Motion on the Foreign Secretary's Speech at Berwick-upon-Tweed on 28th December, 1961.
Motions to approve the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Schemes on Supplementation, Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis and Industrial Diseases (Miscellaneous) Benefit.
TUESDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY, AND WEDNES-DAY, 7TH EBRUARY—Progress in Committee on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.
THURSDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—Report and Third Reading of the Army Reserve Bill.
FRIDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Supply [6th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the


Civil Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (No. 4) Order, 1961.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when it is proposed to find time for the Opposition Motion of censure on the Government's attitude towards the growth of private monopoly?
[That this House deplores the timid and complacent attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the growth of private monopoly in Great Britain and their refusal to safeguard the public interest by instituting a public inquiry into the proposed merger of Imperial Chemical Industries and Courtaulds.]

Mr. Macleod: It is not in the business for next week, but clearly it would be desirable that it should be debated on a reasonably early date.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed that the Minister of Transport and the Postmaster-General should make statements to the House on the latest developments in the disputes with which they are concerned and the rather welcome change of attitude which at least in the case of the Minister of Transport appears to be developing?

Mr. Macleod: I will consult my two right hon. Friends on the question of a statement.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend say when we will have the promised debate on the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not have forgotten that he has promised a debate. When will that promise be redeemed?

Mr. Macleod: I think that my hon. Friend cannot find words that take what I have said as far as that. What I have said is that I should like to find an opportunity to debate the subject. This is the time of year, as the House knows, when there are claims of essential Supply and of urgent legislation and it is extremely difficult to find opportunities for other debates.

Mr. G. Thomas: Has the Leader of the House seen the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of a great many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself dealing with the need for a pilot survey into the needs of old people living alone? In view of the Prime Minister's appeal to the national conscience at Christmas time—if it was meant at all—surely the Government will give us time to discuss a Motion of this importance.
[That this House, being mindful of the necessity to obtain more information concerning the needs, other than financial, of old people living alone, and recognising that no adequate machinery exists for collecting this information, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to undertake through local welfare authorities a pilot survey in selected areas and to publish the findings in a White Paper.]

Mr. Macleod: Such an inquiry is being carried out. The field work is being done mainly in Lewisham, and I believe that a report is expected in April or May.

Sir D. Robertson: Will the Leader of the House state when he will provide time for the Motion in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself, which deals with the failure of the Committee of Selection to observe Standing Order No. 58?
[That this House regrets that the Committee of Selection by not appointing the hon. Members for Banffshire and Caithness and Sutherland to the Standing Committee on the Sea Fish Industry Bill failed to observe the provision of Standing Order No. 58 which requires the Committee to pay attention to the qualifications of Members appointed to serve on Standing Committees.]

Mr. Macleod: I cannot undertake to find time for that. It was a recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure that Standing Committees should, wherever possible, be smaller, and 25 hon. Members were appointed to the Standing Committee on the Sea Fish Industry Bill, which is the Bill in question. A great number of hon. Members with considerable interest in the Bill who wanted to speak on Second Reading were unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. J. Hynd: Are the Government considering the early introduction of an Amendment to the Street Offences Act in the light of the latest decision on advertising by prostitutes?

Mr. F. Harris: Has my right hon. Friend reconsidered my request of two weeks ago to have an early debate on Kenya, in view of the constitutional discussions which are to take place shortly and the fact that we have not had a debate for over two years? Can my right hon. Friend also tell us when we shall have a discussion on the White Paper on local government in Greater London, and whether it will be a one-day or a two-day debate?

Mr. Macleod: On the first point, I consulted my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, who was abroad at the time I answered my hon. Friend. He confirms the view which I then expressed that it would be undesirable, in advance of an important constitutional conference, to discuss these matters in the House, which perhaps could lead only to issues being pre-judged.
I hope that we shall have a debate on local government in Greater London during the next two or three weeks. At the moment it looks likely to be a one-day debate with perhaps an extension of time.

Sir L. Plummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to facilitate discussion of the Racial Discrimination and Incitement Bill which was introduced successfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway)?

Mr. Macleod: I will inform myself of the progress of the Bill and take notice of what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Quite apart from Monday's debate on the Foreign Secretary's excellent speech on the United Nations, may I ask my right hon. Friend when we shall debate the taking up by Her Majesty's Government of the United Nations Bond issue, which seems to be something of an innovation in our financial and foreign policy? Will there be a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Macleod: Subject to the Ruling of the Chair, I think that that is a matter which would be eminently in order in Mondays' debate.

Mr. Callaghan: With reference to the request by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Transport might make a statement, may I ask whether the Leader of the House will consider asking his right hon. Friend to make one tomorrow morning, which will be the last time the House will meet before we are threatened with further chaos on Monday? Then he could either confirm or deny that Dr. Beeching is being given greater freedom in negotiations with the railwaymen and that might have a very beneficial effect on the situation.

Mr. Macleod: Immediately after this exchange, I will put this point to my right hon. Friend, but I would make it clear that it is for him to decide whether or not it is appropriate to make a statement. If it is, then perhaps tomorrow morning might be convenient.

Sir J. Duncan: Have there been any approaches through the usual channels for a debate on the Daily Herald? Some of us would like to know whether it is still a Labour paper.

Mr. Grimond: May I refer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) about the Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway)? Is it not very desirable that the Government should give facilities for this Bill, so that there may be no misunderstanding that the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill does not mean that the Government are in any way in favour of racial discrimination?

Mr. Macleod: There is no misunderstanding and there never has been. I understand the feelings about the Bill, particularly in the context of the other Bill, but it is a dangerous practice for a Government to start picking out Private Members' Bills here and there as ones to which they should give special precedence.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it really a dangerous practice for the Government to pick and choose when they are choosing something which commands the assent of the large majority of hon. Members, as I


believe the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) does?

Mr. Brockway: In view of the questions which have been put about the Bill which I introduced, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will bear in mind two factors? First, there is the letter in The Times from a very wide and distinguished circle of leading people urging that facilities should be given to the Bill. Secondly, this time the Bill has the support of sponsors from all three parties in the House.

Mr. Macleod: I understand that. Everybody in the House, or virtually everybody, loathes racial discrimination in every form, but it does not follow from that that legislation is always the easiest or the best way of dealing with it.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is very widespread opposition in the House to the introduction of such legislation as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is proposing? Will he bear in mind that it would be a deplorable innovation in our Constitution, irrespective of people's views on racial discrimination, and will he please not pick out the Bill for this special treatment?

Mr. Macleod: I note that point of view. It shows the truth of what I said a moment ago—that these matters are appallingly difficult to deal with by legislation, as many countries have found.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I repeat to the Leader of the House a question which I asked him a week or two ago? Can he hold out any hope of a reasonably early debate on civil defence? Will he bear in mind that it is five years since the House of Commons had any opportunity to discuss this matter, that in the meantime the whole picture has changed with regard to the weapons themselves, and that the Government's own Defence White Papers since the last debate have fundamentally changed the situation? Is it not time that the House of Commons had an opportunity of examining the matter again?

Mr. Macleod: We are, of course, coming to the time of the year when, amongst other matters, we debate the

Defence White Paper. Clearly, that could be an appropriate time for this.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to a debate on the very important plans put forward by the Minister of Health for hospital building? Although most of them will be built between 1966 and 1975, it is important that the House should discuss the programme at an early date.

Mr. Macleod: I said last week, in reply to a similar question, that no doubt the House would wish to debate this matter. It is of such enormous importance that we should have some considerable time in which to study it. It is a very revolutionary plan.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the matter raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) about nomination to a Standing Committee? Does not he recognise that this is not a matter of the limitation of Committees, but of the rights of minorities in the House to play their full part in Committees on subjects of which they have expert knowledge?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I will certainly consider any points put to me on this subject, but what was done was in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, and as that is a Sessional Committee presumably its views can and should be ascertained when it is set up.

Mr. Gaitskell: Even if the Leader of the House cannot find time to debate the Motion of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) on this matter, would not he consider referring the matter back to the Committee of Selection, with the suggestion that the Standing Committee concerned be enlarged to enable the two hon. Members who have special knowledge, and whose constituents are very much concerned, to become members of the Committee?

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly consider anything reasonable, and I will consider that point. But if we start doing that, we will find that there are more than two hon. Members who will wish to put forward their claims to be put on the Committee on the Sea Fish Industry Bill.

Sir B. Janner: The right hon. Gentleman has heard a considerable amount of support for the Racial Discrimination and Incitement Bill, although one hon. Member has opposed its progress. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier replies, will he say whether, next week, when he is announcing the business for the following week, he will say definitely that the Government will either proceed with the Bill or encourage its progress? Will he take into consideration the very considerable feeling about this, and that we want to dispel any doubts that may be cast on the view of this country about racial discrimination?
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he intends to give the House an opportunity to discuss the Albemarle Report, which is of such considerable importance to the youth of the country?

Mr. Macleod: We have already had a full discussion on the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and to which I have replied many times. I cannot add now to what I have already said.
I cannot see an opportunity for Government time for a debate in the near future on the Albemarle Report, for the reasons which I have given.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be wise of the right hon. Gentleman to take the opinion of right hon. and hon. Members on the position of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson)? Or is this the way in which the Tory Party treats people with independent opinions? I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who professes liberal sentiments, to have some respect for the liberty of the subject.

Mr. Macleod: Of course I have considered this matter. I have had correspondence about it with my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). The appointments to the Standing Committee on the Sea Fish Industry Bill were made by those who select Standing Committees. They have to take into account—they are instructed so to do—the balances in the House. This is a Standing Committee on which more hon. Members would like to serve than there are vacancies In such a case it is bound to happen that some are left out.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee of Selection, in making this selection, carried out the Standing Orders of the House both in letter and in spirit?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I know that to be so and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt the House will think about this matter. No doubt it is proper in this range of business questions to ask when a Motion can be discussed or debated, but we cannot now discuss the merits of the dispute, as it were.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the guardian of the privileges and rights of hon. Members and, naturally, you have the sole authority. But surely you must have some regard for the position of hon. Members who seek to carry out their duties and responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker: I have every possible regard for matters of that kind, but the House itself appoints the Committee of Selection to do this work for it, and it cannot be for me, on a point of order, to reprimand or reprove the Committee or suggest some amendment to the way in which the Committee is performing its duties. That cannot be so.

Mrs. Castle: Can the Leader of the House clarify his earlier answer on the Racial Discrimination and Incitement Bill? Do we understand the position to be that he is not willing to give facilities to the Bill because he does not agree with the Government's picking out one Private Member's Bill for such facilities, or because he is opposed to the Bill's purposes?

Mr. Macleod: Of course I am not opposed to the purposes of the Bill, although I very much doubt whether the purposes which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has in mind—indeed, which we all have in mind—can be carried out by legislation. Beyond that I think that it would be wrong for me to go.

Mr. Fletcher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the mere fact that the Commonwealth Immigrants


Bill is being dealt with under a Guillotine and that, therefore, discussion on it is being curtailed, is a very special reason why he should find time for debate on the Racial Discrimination and Incitement Bill?

Mr. Macleod: The Racial Discrimination and Incitement Bill is before the House. If the House so wishes, there may well be later opportunities to discuss it at various stages of its progress.

BILL PRESENTED

COMPANIES

Bill to amend the law relating to companies, presented by Mr. Ronald Bell, supported by Mr. Harold Gurden, Mr. John Hall, Sir Hugh Linstead, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Norman Pannell and Mr. Ronald Russell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY RESERVE BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 31st January].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(RESERVE OF TERRITORIAL VOLUNTEERS.)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I beg to move in page 2, line 38, to leave out from first "army" to "has" in line 39.
We now come to Clause 3 of the Bill which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said on Second Reading, we have no objection to in principle. It deals with contracts freely entered into between individuals and the Army.
Before I come to the Amendment, itself, I should tell the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who has taken such a prominent part in the proceedings of the Bill so far, is unable to be with us today. The affliction which marred his voice but not his argument has overpowered him, and I am sure that we shall miss his contributions to our debate today.
The Amendment will make it impossible for any person who is at present in the Territorial Army by virtue of the provisions of the National Service Act, 1948 to enter into an agreement to become a member of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, or the "Ever-readies".
I have moved the Amendment so that the Secretary of State for War can explain why he is putting forward this provision in the Bill. As I understand it, during the earlier proceedings on the Bill he has argued that the ordinary National Service man who may be liable for recall under Clause 2 should be encouraged to go into the Territorial Army and accept the obligations under Clause 3, thus removing any risk of call-up in the normal way under the provisions of Clause 2.
The Secretary of State for War is obviously hoping that he will get a considerable number of volunteers to join the "Ever-readies" so that he will have a wide range of people to choose from to fill the various round holes to which he referred on Second Reading. Because of this, it seems a little unusual, to say the least, that he should go out of his way in this part of Clause 3 to debar certain men from being able to volunteer and sign an agreement with him to go into the T.A.E.R. There may be sound reasons for this.
As I said, my reason for moving the Amendment is to give the Secretary of State for War an opportunity to tell us what these reasons are so that we can make up our minds on the merits or demerits of the matter.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): Before entering into this stage of the Bill, I should like to say how sorry I am that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is ill. I hope that it is nothing to do with our discussions that two distinguished hon. Gentlemen have found it necessary to absent themselves. We regret that someone who has played such a prominent part in our discussions is unable to be here. I spoke to the hon. Member for Dudley on the telephone. His voice was weak, but I shall try to interpret some of his wishes.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) said that he had moved the Amendment to give me an opportunity to explain the reasons for what we are doing. The effect of the Amendment will be to open the T.A.E.R. to all part-time National Service men serving compulsorily with the Territorial Army. Under the Bill as drafted, such men will have to become volunteer members of the Territorial Army before they can join the "Ever-readies". Part-time National Service men are required to volunteer for a Territorial Army engagement before becoming eligible to join the T.A.E.R. because the whole concept of the "Ever-readies "is founded on the voluntary spirit of the Territorial Army.
As the hon. Gentleman recognised, it is my hope that we may be able to attract the keenest and best possible volunteer members of the Territorial

Army. Men who are compulsorily in the Territorial Army, who take no part in the life of a Territorial Army unit, and who do not train, do not fit in with this spirit of the "Ever-readies".
There is nothing to prevent any part-time National Service man volunteering for the T.A.E.R., but if the Amendment were carried we could, at any rate in theory, have a member of the "Ever-readies" over whom the commanding officer had no power to enforce the required training. These are just the men who need refresher training, because, as I announced on Second Reading, part-time National Service men will be exempt from the condition that members of the Territorial Army must have served for one year before becoming eligible for the T.A.E.R. This is because certain part-time National Service men will have had even later experience of serving whole time in the Regular Army.
I hope that I have shown why we cannot accept the Amendment. I think that it would be contrary to the spirit of the Clause.

Mr. F. T. Paget: This is rather odd. I can see the point of view that if the "Ever-ready" is called up to serve with his T.A. organisation it is essential that he should be a volunteer training with that organisation. In fact, however, he may be called up for something quite different, with a different organisation, and for a different job.
I suppose it is true today that every member of the T.A. has served as a National Service man and done his regular training. There may be some exceptions, but they must be rare, and there will be no exceptions in future. With the abolition of National Service, the T.A. will consist more and more of people who have done no regular service. If the Government are looking for bodies, why refuse to accept someone who has had two years—and after this it may be two and a half years—full-time training as a professional soldier, even though a conscripted one, while accepting someone who has served for a year in the Territorial Army, and received, by comparison, the slight training which that involves? It seems to be an odd exclusion.
The right hon. Gentleman said that men who do not join in the life of the


T.A. are unlikely to volunteer as "Ever-readies". I do not see this. A man may be quite prepared to settle into the work of a professional full-time unit, but not be attracted by the camping and social elements of T.A. soldiering. This is not a provision to provide men for the T.A. It is a provision to provide them for the Regular Army. Why, therefore, decline to accept the trained Regular? It seems odd.

Mr. Profumo: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has put this in its proper perspective. When a man finishes his whole-time National Service, he is automatically attached to the T.A. or to the A.E.R.I. He is doing his part-time National Service. What we have said is that the new "Ever-readies" shall be organised within the ambit of the T.A., and that it is open to any part-time National Service man to volunteer to become a T.A. soldier and then get into the T.A.E.R. Just because an ex-National Service man has to be put technically on the books of the T.A., there is no reason to put him in a position different from any other ex-National Service man not on the' books of the T.A. We say that because members of the T.A. may technically not have done National Service, before they can become eligible for the "Ever-readies" they must serve one year, go through a camp, and be chosen by the commanding officer.
The alternative way to get in when his name is on the books technically, or he is an ex-National Service man not on the books, is to volunteer and be accepted by the commanding officer. Then, because he must have been doing whole-time National Service within the last three and a half years, he does not have to do a whole year's training before he can get in.
Everyone must be on the same level. Unless they become members of the Territorial Army, their commanding officers will not have them under their whole-time technical control over their training, and so on. That is what we want to happen and I do not see any reason for differentiating between a man technically on the books of the Territorial Army and somebody who is just an ex-National Service man. We must treat them both the same.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I am sorry to persist, but the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have taken the point. Under Clause 2, men who have completed their National Service and who are doing three and a half years on the Reserve are liable to compulsory call-up. I understand that rather than compulsorily call-up men who do not want to go, the idea is to have a group of volunteers who volunteer to be available for call-up. What additional qualification as against the Clause 2 men is required of the Clause 3 men, other than that they should volunteer to be available for call-up, thus saving the Clause 2 men who do not want to be called up?
If it is said that this is the sort of reserve which is required in an emergency, and so on, and that we have to have someone who has been kept up to date in the Territorial Army, why has it not been required that all the Clause 2 men, the men who can be called up precisely in this way, should be kept up to date in the Territorial Army? That provision is not made, so it seems that being kept up to date in the Territorial Army is not a condition or a qualification of the men wanted. Therefore, why exclude them?
It is a weakness of the Guillotine that as the Bill goes through Committee the Division bells ring and the Government are saved at the points where probing has just become interesting, and we then find ourselves, as we probably will today, with a good deal more time than is needed for other and less controversial matters. We have been trying to find out, as we were not told on Second Reading, whether Clause 2 men would be required in an emergency, or whether, when the right hon. Gentleman had run out of Clause 1 men, the Clause 2 men would simply be used to keep up the numbers of the Army. If the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that these men are for an emergency and will be rarely used, it is in the interests of everybody that the Clause 3 men, the volunteers, should be available so that the Government do not have to call the Clause 2 men from civilian life.
Why should not a man who has the qualifications of a Clause 2 man be available to volunteer under Clause 3, thus saving an unwilling Clause 2 man


with the same qualifications? This is an Amendment which we ought to press.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I do not rule out the possibility that I have failed to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at. It is quite possible that I have the wrong idea. On the other hand, assuming that I have the right idea, I want to ask this question to begin with: what remarkable genius at the War Office conceived this harebrained scheme?
Let us imagine the position. The right hon. Gentleman is gasping for men. It is admitted that he does not have enough Regulars. He does not know whether he will get 165,000 or 182,000 men. That is all in the future, in the lap of the gods. This scheme has been conceived and the intention is to ask men undergoing National Service to accept another six months' service. That matter has been dealt with. Now we come to the question of the "Ever-readies".
The right hon. Gentleman has available 100,000 National Service men who are undertaking their reserve liability, that is to say, 100,000 men who have served two years and who are now reservists. The assumption is that two years is sufficient to train a man and make him a soldier. In addition to the men now undergoing National Service, shortly to come to an end, the right hon. Gentleman has an additional 100,000 who have been adequately trained and of whom he could avail himself in an emergency.
However, the right hon. Gentleman refuses to have those men as "Ever-readies". He will not provide them with the bounty of £150. They may be called up in the event of war, but that is a different proposition from joining the "Ever-readies". That they cannot be permitted to do. I understand that they can join the Territorials. This is a situation out of Gilbert and Sullivan.
There are men who are trained and undertaking their reserve liability and whom the right hon. Gentleman could use if he wanted. However, he says that they must join the Territorial Army, the volunteer Army, and that their commanding officers must select them for the "Ever-readies" if they want to join and if their commanding officer regards them

as men with sufficient ability to undertake the tasks which they will be called upon to carry out.
I do not understand this. If the right hon. Gentleman wants men, he has them. Let the commanding officers select a number of men and ask them if they are prepared to become "Ever-readies." If the commanding officer does not want some of the men, regarding them as not adequately trained, he need not have them. But if they are adequately trained—and some are bound to be tradesmen—and if they are willing to join the "Ever-readies", why should they be rejected?
As I said earlier, my assumption may be wrong, but if anybody can produce an argument in support of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall be very glad to hear it. I see the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) straining at the leash. If he can produce such an argument, I shall be very glad to hear it, but so far none has been put forward.
If I had been Secretary of State for War, and I had wanted men, I would have said that I had men available who had served for two years, so that some of them were bound to be trained soldiers and able to undertake responsibilities as tradesmen and technicians, or in signals. I would have selected them and used them, and I would have given them the opportunity of availing themselves of the bounty which the right hon. Gentleman provides so liberally and generously for men who can volunteer, but who must first be in the Territorial Army.
I wonder whether this scheme has been conceived not so much by the War Office as by the gentlemen associated with the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association. They should have nothing to do with the Army at all; for the most part they are amateurs. This is a matter for the Army Council and not for the T.A.F.A. I have an idea that this scheme must have emanated from their very fertile brains, because they want to maintain control. These men will, therefore, have to join the Territorial Army and become volunteers under the control of the T.A.F.A.
If that is not the case I shall be glad to hear something to the contrary, but at the moment I cannot understand the


proposition. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should reject the Amendment, which seems to play right into his hands and give him the body of trained men that he wants. This is incomprehensible to me.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is very difficult to satisfy in the matter of military personalities. In some of his speeches he casts gentle aspersions—if not exactly abuse—on the Regular generals, on the ground that they are stupid and hidebound, and require to be watched very carefully by the politicians, while in other speeches he talks about the amateur generals with a sneer and with contempt, and says that they obviously do not know what they are doing.

Mr. Shinwell: I have not said anything of the sort. I am not attacking the high-ranking officers of the Army Council. I am speaking about the gentlemen who are associated with the T.A.F.A. and Who, for the most part, are amateurs, or men who have retired. Some of them were in the Army years and years ago, in the Victorian era.

Mr. Kershaw: We have some Ministers of Defence who retired from their jobs a long time ago, and if the gentlemen in the T.A.F.A. who have spent many years of their lives serving with the Armed Forces are amateurs, What may they think about we politicians who are talking about them as amateurs this afternoon?
There are two reasons of substance why the Amendment should not be accepted. First, in asking my right hon. Friend to give one good reason, the right hon. Member for Easington did not appear to pay enough attention to the necessity for training. Training in military matters must be kept up to date, because new systems, weapons and organisations come into existence very quickly, and it is extremely easy to become out of date and relatively inefficient. It is important that those people who are going to be called up, if necessary, shall be au fait with the latest machinery, wireless sets, and so on.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that the Territorial

Army possesses the latest wireless sets? Does he realise that the Regular Army does not yet possess them? Nobody yet has a transistor set.

Mr. Kershaw: I know that the Territorial Army has the latest wireless sets. The hon. and learned Member is a little off the beam there.
The training that these men have to do is extremely necessary if they are to take their place in a Regular unit. It cannot be a sensible thing to give a bounty to any man who, for three and a half years and while subject to recall under Clause 2, is prepared to sign on the dotted line saying that he will come back in an emergency. All sorts of personal difficulties may arise, which may change his circumstances. Some men will be willing to take a gamble that they will not be called up, and will accept the £150 as a reasonable risk.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member is misunderstanding the argument. We are not discussing the question of the bounty; we are discussing the question whether National Service men who have had two years' training and are undertaking their reserve liability of three and a half years should be permitted to join "Ever-ready" units. Naturally, if they did join they would receive the bounty, but that is not our argument. We should like to know why they are being excluded, as the Bill at present excludes them. It says that
any person who is a member of the territorial army, not being a person serving in that army only in pursuance of the National Service Act"—
that is, the man who is undertaking his reserve liability—is to be excluded. Is not that so?

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Kershaw: Certainly he is excluded if he does not remove himself from the Clause 2 category; but he is not bound to be excluded. If he volunteers for the T.A. and becomes subject to this process of training, which is one of the essentials of the "Ever-readies", he will be accepted. It will be an advantage that he has only just completed his service. But it is essential that he shall be within the framework of the military organisation, and not merely a name on a paper, if he is to give any substance to the "Ever-ready" idea.
I believe that the purpose of the Clause has been misunderstood by hon. Members opposite. These men ought to be included, but only if they are prepared to train. It brings men from the reserve forces into the Territorial Army. Those who run the Territorial Army must be able to ensure that those who form the "Ever-readies" will be able to fulfil the functions of that organisation, in respect of which they are being paid a substantial amount of money.
All Territorial regiments depend a great deal upon the morale of their members. Efficiency and recruitment depend largely upon this factor. To withdraw the control of the commanding officer over the men in his regiment, and to take away his responsibility for promotion, would be to strike a serious blow at the way in which the Territorial Army is run. Even now there is a slight danger about this scheme. It will doubtless be watched very closely by those who are responsible for running it.
If the commanding officer of a Territorial unit is obliged to accept into his unit anybody who is willing to sign up to become an "Ever-ready", and so receive the bounty, it will remove a great deal of his responsibility. He must have an opportunity to choose and to be able to reject men whom he regards as unsuitable. Nothing spoils a unit more than to have in it somebody who does not fit in with the rest and who is not anxious to make the thing work. He does not want to have a gang of thugs who are prepared to form a sort of paraunit within the T.A. unit, and who go about saying, "We are the boys who are prepared to go to war. We will use your facilities and drink your beer, but we will be off as soon as there is any excitement, leaving you to stay at home and watch the women and children". That would be bad for the Territorial Army. These men must be part and parcel of their units.
Some of these "Ever-readies" will be called upon to go, as individuals, now here and now there to fill gaps as they occur, but I hope that consideration can be given to the possibility of posting men together—admittedly, in small subunits. We know the clannishness of the British character, especially as it exists in the Army. There is regimental spirit, and even if just a small sub-unit, such

as a section, could be given a guarantee that if its members were called upon to serve they would be able to serve together an enormous fillip would be given to recruiting.
I have not been able to make detailed inquiries, but I have carried out some investigations in my part of the country, and in the regiment with which I was connected, and I have discovered that after the announcement made by my right hon. Friend recruitment to the "Ever-readies" rose by 25 per cent. Everybody who joined in the fortnight after the announcement was made inquired whether he would be allowed to join the "Ever-readies". This scheme may be a remarkable success, but if it is not handled in the right way the Territorial Army may suffer in the long run. We do not want a specialist corps of people; we want them all to be part of the Territorial Army.
I have put forward this suggestion before. When I last did so, some years ago, I was told that anything of the sort would be utterly impossible. Nevertheless, I hope that consideration can be given to allowing these Territorial Army "Ever-readies" to serve together in small sub-units, or at least to have a hope of being called up to serve together. I should not think that it would be too difficult. I know that many regiments in the British Army could not guarantee this, but it might be possible to do so in the case of, say, two tank crews, or a section of infantry taken from the Yeomanry, or a line regiment with which it was associated.
The possibility of men going to a regiment they know and being with comrades with whom they live as neighbours and whose families they know, would, I think, be an immense help to recruiting. It would be good for the morale of the Territorial Army and it would produce the men my right hon. Friend needs.

Sir Richard Glyn: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), because I agree with much of what he has said. I wish to say a word about the position in the Territorial Army, with which I have been associated for some time. I must declare an interest, because I am still connected with it.
In the event of an emergency in a few year's time, I am hoping—we shall have to see—that the first men to be called up will be the "Ever-readies", as opposed to the reservists who have still a liability for recall under Clause 2. Speaking, as I say, as a Territorial, I am quite confident that when the time comes the authorities, after the fullest possible examination, will be quite satisfied that the "Ever-readies" will be more prepared and suitable for immediate service than the reservists. I will tell the Committee why.
Let me, first, deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell), who asked why those reservists still in the Territorial Army should not be "Ever-readies." The point is that only those in the Territorial Army who, under their liability, have not volunteered are the ones who are excluded under the terms of this Clause. I believe that to be quite right. The right hon. Gentleman looks surprised, and the measure of his surprise, is, I say with confidence, the precise gauge of his lack of knowledge of Territorial Army affairs.

Mr. Shinwell: Suppose the hon. Gentleman was the commanding officer of a unit, or a battalion. Which would he choose: would he rather have a man trained for two years under the National Service Act, who was discharging his reserve liability and perhaps only a few months ago had finished his National Service, or an "Ever-ready" trained for one year?

Sir R. Glyn: I must answer that fairly and squarely and say what I think. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken from his regard for the Regular Army. I will put it like this. Those reservists who come to the Territorial Army under their legal liability to do so fall into two groups. There are those who, either because of the enthusiasm that the Regular Army has engendered in them, or the interest that they take in the training they find in the Territorial Army, volunteer to become members of the Territorial Army and do more than the very small number, the minimum number, of drills which is their legal responsibility. These men have become

keen Territorials and prove that by staying in the Territorial Army long after their legal liability to do so has expired.
There is another group of people who, in their own words, are "fed up"—they sometimes use stronger language—with their experience in the Regular Army, and are counting the days until their liability for reserve service is finished. They did the minimum amount of drills, and sometimes less than the legal minimum, and so, occasionally, they had to be prosecuted in consequence. These are the men who are excluded under this Clause as it is drafted—

Mr. Shinwell: No.

Sir R. Glyn: I must be allowed to finish. These are the ones who have not volunteered to join the Territorial Army. Those who have chosen to volunteer are not excluded.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not facing the position. Take the case, which he has just put to the Committee of the ex-National Service man undertaking his reserve liability and who, because of his association with the Regular Army, has a keenness for the Army. He therefore associates himself with a Territorial unit. We know that that happens and we encourage it. We know that there are two categories. There are those who, according to the hon. Gentleman, and using the language he used, are "fed up", and there are those who are keen. But those who are keen, and associate themselves with Territorial units, if they do not volunteer—apart from their associating—for the "Ever-readies", are excluded. They are not selected by the commanding officer.

Sir R. Glyn: They must volunteer for the Territorial Army, not the "Ever-readies". The one thing must precede the other. I must get this straight. The right hon. Gentleman, who is very interested in Army matters, has, clearly, not studied the Territorial Army appreciably at all.
When a National Service man comes into the Territorial Army, he is known as an ex-National Service man. If he volunteers for the Territorial Army while still legally bound to be in the Territorial Army, he becomes known as a National Service volunteer. Thus we


find that the National Service volunteer is in the Territorial Army not merely because of his legal liability, but also because he has volunteered. As I read the Bill, he is then eligible to volunteer, as a second step, for the "Ever-readies".

Mr. Shinwell: Of course he is. After this long palaver, the hon. Gentleman has conceded my point. A man can be associated with a Territorial unit and undergoing a reserve liability. But unless he volunteers then, again, for the "Ever-readies", he is excluded, according to the provisions of the Bill.

Sir R. Glyn: When the right hon. Gentleman says "volunteer for the Ever-readies' "he means "volunteer for the Territorials". If he can get the two things distinct and say what he means, it will be simpler to deal with his contention, which I do understand. The right hon. Gentleman is using the terms as though they were synonymous when they are not.
A man must first volunteer for the T.A., which every keen ex-National Service man does. Those who are not keen do not. It is only those who are not keen who are excluded by this Clause. I think that that is quite clear. Having by virtue of his keenness, and after doing more than 20 drills a year—which is really a negligible and a contemptible number—volunteered for the T.A., he comes into the category who may be considered for the "Ever-readies." And, if he wishes, he can volunteer for that, and be considered on an equal footing with anyone else in the regiment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whom I would choose. It would depend entirely on the man. No one could possibly say which category he would choose, taking the matter by categories. But let me put the right hon. Gentleman right on another point. He has referred to the Territorial Army as "amateurs". I accept that. I have rather an affection for the amateur. But if the right hon. Gentleman were to visit a Territorial unit which, it occurs to me, he may not have done recently, he would find in it a surprising proportion of recently retired Regulars who, perhaps, would not like to be called amateurs.
I had the pleasure recently of dining with a Territorial sub-unit which had nothing to do with my own battery. My

host was a recently promoted Territorial major. Three months before he had been a Territorial captain. A year before that he was a major in the Regular Army, but, on retiring, he had dropped a rank to join the T.A. Whether the right hon. Gentleman would describe him as an amateur, and whether he would be right to do so, is a matter of opinion, but I would not agree.
Let me deal with the matter of training, which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman. This is very important. It must not be supposed that the Territorial Army trains itself in an airy-fairy way. It has the advantage of the most highly skilled permanent staff of instructors supplied at regular intervals from the Regular Army. It also has training officers and other facilities and a close liaison with the Regular Army. This is right, and I should like to see more of it. If the right hon. Member does not fully accept what I say, I hope that he will visit one or two Territorial regiments and units to get this clear in his mind.
I believe that there are not many National Service men in a good unit who have failed to volunteer to join the Territorial Army to do extra drills and to undergo extra training. The less keen ones will be of no great use to my right hon. Friend in his body of "Ever-readies" which, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, should be a corps d'elite, the best that the Territorial Army has to offer.
4.30 p.m.
I also agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a tremendous help to the T.A. if these "Ever-readies", who, I know, will volunteer in great numbers as soon as they can be taken on to the books, could be allowed so far as possible to serve together in parties, either in sub-units or groups from the same unit. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is an arrangement which might be administratively helpful. Presumably, Regular Army units which are short of different categories of men will indicate their shortages and almost indent for categories of "Ever-readies".
Wherever possible, those men required by any Regular unit should be supplied from a unit, or at least a brigade, in the Territorial Army. Then they would


travel together wherever they had to go. That might be of considerable convenience in getting them precisely to the point where they are wanted rather than each going individually.
I think that there would be advantage in this. It would be a great help to the morale of Territorials if they knew that they would be likely to serve together with those they knew and with whom they had already trained. If it is possible to carry out that scheme I hope that it will be done.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I think is one of the most imaginative and sensible steps taken by a Secretary of State for War for a very long time. As one who has had a little experience of the Territorial Army, I endorse every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). There are two distinct types of men in the Territorial Army. There are those who are there because they want to be there and those who are there because they have got to be there.
Everything that has been said about the Regular Army in debates on this Bill applies with equal force to the Territorial Army. The whole idea in recent years has been to build up a completely Regular Army. It was our aim when I was in the Territorial Army—and still is the aim, I think—to build up what we called a "Regular Territorial Army". In other words, it would be a Territorial Army consisting, so far as we could ensure it, entirely of volunteers to do a job they wanted to do. My experience over a number of years was that that type of man became an extremely useful soldier who tried to the best of his ability to train himself as a soldier.
On the other hand, we had a small number of National Service men in my unit who had been impressed into the Territorial Army and did not want to be there. They were psychologically unsuitable and they did not volunteer for the Territorial Army. I gather that it is the latter type of men that this Amendment is trying to bring in as "Ever-readies". In my opinion, they are the most unsuitable men for this purpose in the whole Territorial Army.

Mr. Shinwell: That is not the idea at all.

Mr. Hendry: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will make a speech on that subject later.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, I will.

Mr. Hendry: For the keen man the Territorial Army becomes more than a hobby; it becomes a way of life. After he has been in for a number of years, and the time comes for him to leave, he finds that the whole of his life as he has known it is coming to an end. He has worked for the Army and what has to do with the Army is his principal interest. That applies not only to officers, but to most humble men such as batmen and mess orderlies. They work together as a team.
My experience of the Territorial Army—a few years ago now—was that one gets a great degree of efficiency in a Territorial Army unit. Since I left I think that this has increased. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That, of course, is not because of my leaving, but because there has been a considerable influx to the Territorial Army of Regular Army officers who have returned to civilian life. On my last visit to my unit I was told by N.C.O.s that the efficiency of the unit was now almost frightening. It was even greater than the efficiency in Regular Army units when they were in the Regular Army. We have here a body of men who seem eminently suitable to come to the aid of the country in an emergency such as my right hon. Friend has in mind.
As one with a little experience of these things, I suggest to the Committee that the type of men who are in the Territorial Army purely because of National Service commitments are the most unsuitable for this purpose. My right hon. Friend can find the men he wants in great numbers among what I would call the regular volunteer Territorials.

Sir Douglas Glover: I, also, wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend. This is one of the most imaginative things which have been done and I believe that it will act as a shot in the arm for the Territorial Army. I hope that the "Ever-readies" might be allowed to wear a special flash to show that they are "Ever-readies".
I support my hon. Friends in hoping that these men may be allowed to serve as sub-units and not be isolated, because nothing is more lonely for a man than to go into a unit by himself for six months. It takes three months for him to make friends and then three months later he is leaving again. If men could go in small groups I do not see why Territorial and Regular units should not work in close liaison. That would knit them more closely together than is the case at present. In the long run that would be a good thing both for the Territorial Army and the Regular forces.
There is a problem which will be found in carrying out this idea. If they volunteer, these men have to be accepted, yet I suppose that my right hon. Friend will not wish to create a bar in each unit. If men are to be called to fill holes in the Regular Army, it is obvious that we do not want to call up many of the senior ranks from Territorial units. Is there to be a ceiling of age or seniority beyond which an "Ever-ready" can no longer continue to serve?
If I were commanding a Territorial battalion I could put my name on the "Ever-ready" list as soon as it was opened, but I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend would want to call up a half-termer to serve in a unit. That is a danger which he might look at when he is drawing up his regulations.

Mr. John Morrison: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn), I am still connected with the Territorial Army, and I want to support him in one thing he said. Purely from the administrative point of view, it may be a little more difficult to work, but where Territorials go from one unit to another, I think it will be very popular if they are able to be kept together as units. I hope that if it is at all possible my right hon. Friend will keep groups, even small ones, together when calling people up for further service.

Mr. Profumo: I am glad that we have managed to find time for such interesting contributions to be made on this Amendment, and I rise now to see if I can persuade the right hon. Member for

Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that what has been said from this side of the Committee has very great force in it.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech was talking about those members of the Territorial Army—part-time National Service men—who had an association with units of the Territorial Army. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has raised this point very succinctly indeed. He said that there are two types—those who want to be in, and those who have got to be in. Those who want to be in are those who volunteer, and there is nothing to stop anybody volunteering for the Territorial Army as such, provided that we do not go through the ceiling of the establishment of the Territorial Army. The fact that so many people are on the books of the Territorial Army is a purely administrative arrangement for which probably the right hon. Gentleman himself had some responsibility in the past. It may be that in certain circumstances we could call up these people, but, for a long time now, this has merely been a bookkeeping job, and I can assure him that now there is no association with the units today.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman stopped the training?

Mr. Profumo: I have not stopped anything. It has just evolved, and people are purely on the books. That is why I am trying to explain again, because if we were under that illusion, the right hon. Gentleman would have great force in his argument. He can take it from me that nowadays these people are purely on the hooks, and, to all intents and purposes, they are no different from those people not on the books of the T.A., but who were merely serving their part-time responsibilities as National Service men.

Mr. Bellenger: There is no training for them?

Mr. Profumo: There is no training liability, and I will come to that point later.
There could be only two reasons for the Amendment, as I see it. I do not want to accept Amendments unless they improve the Bill, and I do not think this would improve the


Bill, for two reasons. The two reasons for wanting this Amendment are, first, because the Committee does not like the Territorial Army, or the control which it exercises or the functions which it carries out. I do not think any hon. Member would carry that argument. I am sure that one of the reasons for producing this new voluntary force inside the Territorial Army has been my desire and that of my colleagues to give it a shot in the arm and a new sense of purpose. This is very important.
If we accept the fact that the Territorial Army has a great job to perform today, do not let us regard this Clause purely as meaning that I am wanting men and might get more men if I accepted the Amendment. I am not just wanting men. As one of my hon. Friends has said, I am wanting a corps d'élite, the best men; and I believe that the best men will all be prepared to volunteer to serve in the Territorial Army.
The other reason why the Amendment might have some purpose would be if it were designed as a way in which a part-time National Service man could avoid being called up under Clause 2. If this was designed to give a man who might be called up as a Clause 2 man an alibi to get out and get the bounty, I would not have drafted this Bill correctly, but it is not designed to do that. It is purely a question of a man who volunteers to join the Territorial Army as a part-time National Service man after having been selected. There must be selection by the commanding officer. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said—and it may have been a slip of the tongue—that if he volunteered he would have to be accepted, but part of the Clause says that the commanding officer has the right to accept or reject a volunteer. If he does volunteer and is accepted, he goes in with priority over the existing men in the Territorial Army. Some people may regard this as unfair, in that he can earn his bounty without having to wait a year. The reason I have had to do that is that there are, on the short-term, probably more part-time National Service men who have no recent experience of the Regular Army than

many of the men in the Territorial Army. We are not being unfair to them; if anything, we are giving them a slight edge on the men in the Territorial Army.
4.45 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman, in developing his argument, asked what was the difference between the Clause 2 man who has come out of the Regular Army and a Territorial. There may not be much difference now, but this is a long-term concept, and I made this very plain in my Second Reading speech. It is not a way of plugging holes. I am introducing it in this Bill because it needs legislation, and I want to get it started as soon as I can. In so far as it is successful, as I believe it will be, it will have the effect of requiring fewer part-time National Service men to be called up should we have an emergency. It is a long-term concept. I have to think about the time when there are no longer any National Service men. Four years from now, when we will not have any, I want this to be a really crack corps of people on whom we can call in an emergency. In order to do that, they must be trained. There is not much disparity now between the two types, but later on these men will be those on whom we shall depend. It is therefore essential that, from the beginning, these men should do their training.

Mr. Shinwell: Will these "Ever-readies" be trained as separate units or trained alongside ordinary volunteers in the Territorial Army who do do not undergo exceptional training? Are there to be two types of training?

Mr. Profumo: I am not sure that I am not liable to stray outside the rules of order if I answer that. This is something which we could perhaps discuss on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I think it is rather far from this Amendment, but I am in the hands of the Chairman if I am allowed to pursue it. There will be various types of training. We shall need administrative men and the "teeth arm" men, but by and large the "Ever-readies" will train in the normal way with the Territorial Army. In so far as there may be sections of the "Ever-readies" who require training with more sophisticated material or in special ways, I may have to make arrangements for


these people to do their training in special ways or indeed attach them to the Regular Army.
In order to earn their bounty, they will have to have done their annual training with the Territorial Army, and unless they are embodied in the T.A. and do their training, we may get people who will take the opportunity of taking a jolly good £150, join up as an "Ever-ready", slip through the examination by being rather a slick chap and then not turn up to do anything. The fact that he does not get his £150 does not matter to me, but the fact he is keeping another good man out does matter to me. It is an essential part of the scheme that if we are to create a corps d'elite, it must be part of the T.A., and I do not believe that the men we want will not want to join.
I see absolutely no reason why we should accept the Amendment. I was very impressed by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison), whom I was very glad to see here taking part in the debate, in view of his great knowledge, my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) and Ormskirk who all pressed upon me the point that if called up these men should be called up in subunits. On Second Reading, I went as far as I possibly could on this point. I have said that as the reason for all this is to call up individual men—I have called them round pegs for round holes—I cannot give an undertaking that the normal course will be to call them up in units. I repeat that if it is possible to call men up in sub-units this will be borne in mind by the Army Council, and the Territorial Army Advisory Council has already put this point to me.
In regard to the question of the age limit, the age limit for the T.A.E.R. will follow the same age limit as in the Territorial Army in the different parts of it. There will also be an establishment.

Sir D. Glover: Seniority?

Mr. Profumo: My hon. Friend talked about the age limit as well, and seniority goes with it. The age limit will be the same as in the Territorial Army, and seniority will be dealt with in this way. There will be an establishment for the

"Ever-readies", but I cannot say now what the establishment will be, because it will vary.
The establishment in the "Ever-readies" will really represent the shortages in the Regular Army, and they will vary. I must allow them to vary, or it will not serve its purpose. In one year the establishment might be such as to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk to become a colonel. I could almost promise him that he would become a colonel if he would go in one of the "difficult" corps. In another year the establishment might be such that it would not take my hon. Friend at all. This would be a matter of great regret, but he would be told on volunteering whether he would be accepted. I believe that this matter will work itself out.
Alternatively, my hon. Friend could consider doing what many people will do, namely, volunteering for the "Ever-readies" and dropping his rank altogether and becoming a corporal cook. Then he might get in at once. The point is that the "Ever-readies" will be mixed-teeth arms and administrative units to suit the shortages existing in the Army at any time. I believe that the only way to do this is that which is proposed in the Bill. Therefore, I very much regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Kershaw: It has not been unknown in the T.A. for somebody to go through all the ranks and eventually command a unit and then join again as a private especially in the Parachute Regiment. Will that be permitted here? Will my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) be able to join the Parachute Regiment as a private in spite of the fact that he holds a Territorial Army commission?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think that under the Clause he could join the Parachute Regiment as a private. We are only considering the "Ever-readies". If he had been a colonel in the Parachute Regiment, he could join the Territorial unit and serve as an other rank, if he was accepted, as I am sure that he would be, and if he was prepared to join as another rank and could show himself to be proficient in one of the categories for which there was an establishment in the "Ever-readies" at that time.

Mr. Shinwell: We are very glad to enroll the Territorials this afternoon. They have joined the Regulars. We have not seen much of them in the course of the debate. There is very little likelihood that any of them will volunteer for the "Ever-readies", despite the incentive of the bounty, not that they require a bounty. However, I will not go into their financial position.
Something has been gained from this debate. We have managed to elucidate some very valuable information on the subject of training, but I am not entirely satisfied, I want to direct attention to what seems to me to be an anomaly. I am not dealing now so much with the man who is undergoing his reserve liability and is associated on paper with the Territorial Army. I am dealing with the man whom the right hon. Gentleman proposes to call up for another six months under Clause 2.
If a man is to be called up for another six months, having undergone his two years' National Service training, surely he is entitled to some consideration. I am not speaking of the ordinary man, the man who is "fed up", who displays no enthusiasm, who is not keen on the Army, and who is glad to get away from it. I am speaking about the man who is to be called up, not merely retained.
If he is already serving and is to be retained for a further period, he is retained under Clause 1. I am speaking about the man who is out of the service but who is brought back for another six months under Clause 2
If such men are to be brought back for another six months, the reason they are recalled to the Service is that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, they can perform adequate military service. I want some consideration for these men, apart from volunteering for the Territorials and becoming "Ever-readies".
It is true that it is a considerable time since I was associated with the Territorial Army. I want to make it clear that in what I said earlier I was not criticising the colonels, majors, captains, etc. When I spoke about the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association, I was speaking of the people at the top. I doubt whether many of them are within

the category of colonels, majors or subordinate officers.
What troubles me about this proposition is not so much the idea of the "Ever-readies". Although some of us do not accept the principle of the Bill, and think that it is quite unnecessary, I am bound to say that the idea of the "Ever-readies" seems to be an excellent one, provided that there is no discrimination. That is what troubles me. There will be two sections in the Territorial Army. One section will be composed of these volunteers, who will receive £150 and other emoluments. They will be associated with the ordinary Territorials, who receive nothing at all and who undergo some perfunctory annual training and a few drills a year. The "Ever-readies" will have to undergo more adequate training and may have to serve for six months. They are to receive a different form of training.
I cannot understand this discrimination, although I am bound to say that the explanation that the right hon. Gentleman has just given of his intention to select men for special tasks, apart from the ordinary Territorial training, seems to be much more satisfactory. I do not know how it will work out. It may not work out too well, but I can see the advantage in it, because then men with exceptional ability can perform exceptional tasks which are worth while and add to the efficiency of the force. Nevertheless, if my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench think that the Amendment is worth while and has substance, I will join them in the Division Lobby.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I want to make one short point to the Secretary of State by way of elucidating something arising from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has just said. My right hon. Friend said that the "Ever-readies" with a bounty of £150 a year, if they go on to re-engage, will be serving with Territorials who will be receiving nothing. That is not quite true. The Territorials will be receiving a bounty.

Mr. Shinwell: How much?

Mr. Bellenger: I think that it is £60. For how long does the Minister envisage


that he will want to keep the "Ever-readies" going? He said on Second Reading:
The primary object, therefore, of Clause 3 is to provide a trained reserve ready to supplement the Regular Army at short notice."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 52.]
I do not know how it appears to the right hon. Gentleman, but I believe that if keen Territorials who joined because they were interested in the Territorial Army and who receive a bounty serve alongside the "Ever-readies", who are to receive a much higher bounty, consideration should be paid to the question of differentiation. I will not say that this state of affairs would affect morale adversely, because the answer presumably is that the "Ever-readies" have an obligation to be called out quickly which the ordinary Territorials have not. No doubt the Secretary of State considered this aspect when formulating the scheme.
On the question of morale, we must be careful that we do not weight the balance so that there will be two groups of men, one receiving a small bounty but doing the same work as the other receiving a larger bounty but under the obligation to be called out in an emergency. It might affect comradeship. How long does the right hon. Gentleman think he will want to keep the "Ever-readies" scheme going? What does he think about the point I have just made as to the differentiation between two forms of Territorials?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I hope that when the Secretary of State replies he will make the training position positively clear. It appears to me that the "Ever-readies" and the Territorials will not be doing the same type of training. They may do a certain amount in common, but the "Ever-ready" force, which will be liable to call-up, will have to be specially trained and skilled in acts which will not affect ordinary Territorial units.
This problem gives me considerable concern. I have been studying the Clause, trying to ascertain how this system of dovetailing the "Ever-readies" with the Territorials will work out. Having read the Second Reading

speeches and some of those made on previous Amendments, whether we like it or not, there is some confusion as to whether the "Ever-readies" are going to become a Territorial unit within the Territorial Association. If they are, then the bounty problem—so much for the "Ever-readies" and nothing, apart from perhaps some ex-gratia payment, for the Territorials—is bound to be raised. It is bound to affect loyalty, comradeship and the men's interest in the Service generally.
I am at a loss to understand how two distinct services can he dovetailed in this way. After all, an "Ever-ready" is a soldier whom we expect to call up at short notice. He is advanced in training and knows the techniques of war and military establishments. That is the type of person I conceive to be an "Ever-ready" soldier. If my picture of him is correct and if he is to receive £150, it would appear that he must have some form of advanced training as a normal Territorial Association member.
How is this training to be performed? How will these men receive their knowledge? I can visualise the "Ever-readies" having to be taken to study some of the warheads in the south of England. To study these operations these men would require to be moved to that part of the country, just as we would have to move a number of "Ever-readies" from Scotland. Surely the Secretary of State does not propose to move the whole of the Territorial Army or Territorial Association? If not, how does he propose to get over this problem on behalf of a section of the Service which we require to be ready for call-up at a moment's notice?
Since this problem has arisen, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will clarify the position and explain just how far "Ever-readies" will be dovetailed into the existing Territorial units. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, it is something more than these men really being retained at home doing two or three nights drill on a firing range or something of that sort. There seems to be a good deal more for the "Ever-readies" to do than I had previously thought.
The £150 bounty will not be a snowball, for these are the soldiers who will be available at short notice should—and


let us hope any situation requiring them can be avoided—the country require defending. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will clear this matter up and explain how far the "Ever-readies" can be dovetailed into the Territorial units.

Mr. Reynolds: I began my speech on this Amendment in an inquiring frame of mind, expecting, frankly, that the answers I would get from the Secretary of State would be rather more detailed and that a better case would be put forward than has so far happened. All that has happened is that we have seen appear in the Chamber one or two hon. Members whom we have not seen earlier during our discussions on the Bill, and it appears that several of them have been officers in the Territorial Army and have made speeches in support of it. I do not disagree With them, but I have the impression—

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. This is the third time this innuendo has been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) and myself were in the House all day yesterday and have been here today.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): I have just come to the Chair and am not yet familiar with the discussion earlier. So far I have not heard anything particularly objectionable.

Mr. Reynolds: It is true that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in and out of the Chamber, but not all of those who have come in and have defended—and rightly so—the Territorial Army and the existence or creation within it of this new Territorial Army Reserve have been here thoughout the discussion.
We have heard one or two conflicting views. I heard the Secretary of State say that he wanted to create an elite in the Territorial Army, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) said that he did not want to see an elite rushing around saying, "We are the men who matter. We are in the special reserve and can be whisked away as soon as trouble starts." I got the impression that many hon. Gentlemen opposite were primarily con

cerned with keeping this particular "perk" of membership of the "Ever-readies"—the £150 bounty—because some people are trying to make out—and I see the Secretary of State shaking his head, but it is, nevertheless, the case—that this is a nice "perk". The Secretary of State referred to this—the £150 bounty and how wonderful it would be for a man to have the money to buy his wife a present, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman put that forward as being a good thing and implied that hundreds of people would be rushing in to get it.
I have the impression that some hon. Gentlemen opposite closely connected with the Territorial Army are concerned to make sure that this "perk" remains completely within the grasp of the Territorial Army. I am not convinced, so far, that it is absolutely necessary for this to be done, since I believe that we are primarily concerned in this Clause and in these provisions, not with improving, creating or expanding the Territorial Army, but in making sure that men are available—as and when they are required—to fill gaps in the Regular Army. Is that not the reason for this provision?
I suggest that it is not absolutely necessary, therefore, to bar the small and diminishing number of people concerned in the Amendment. We have been told that there are two types of Territorial Army soldier among National Service men; those who want to be in and those who have got to be in. That may be true, but I know that among my personal contacts are young men who have finished their National Service in particular branches of the Army. They come out, some of them with commissions in the Ordnance Corps and the Engineers, and are posted to Territorial regiments whose functions have absolutely no connection whatever with the functions of the units in which they served during their National Service. The point is that those units happen to be convenient and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) pointed out, they were on the books.
There has been no incentive for these men to become active in these units since they know virtually nothing about those units' work, although they know a lot about the work of the units in which they


did their National Service. I do not think that these men can necessarily be described as either wanting to be in or having to be in. I suppose their names were on the units' lists and they were posted there without consideration being given to the specialised work they had been doing during their National Service.
This question—the type of work men have been doing during National Service—may be one of the round holes to be filled in the Regular Army by means of the Territorial Emergency Reserve. Is it not the case that someone employed in the Army while doing his National Service as a radar mechanic and who is now working full time at that job is on the books of his local Territorial regiment? Is it to be said that a man in that position, doing his job full-time, would not be trained sufficiently to become a very suitable "Ever-ready"? Is it to be said that a man in that position must be available to do at least 20 drills a year with his Territorial Army unit to be able to fill that round hole in the Regular Army? I believe that the Secretary of State thinks it is, but a man employed full-time in a factory doing this sort of work probably has at his disposal much better facilities to ensure that he knows his job than he would in the Territorial Army. [An HON. MEMBER: "But not militarily."] Not militarily, no. Nevertheless, there is a round hole in the Regular Army that he could probably fill, and it is assumed that he could be brought straight in under Clause 2 and be put into the round hole without the military training—

Sir Richard Glyn: This is most important, because, frankly, it goes to the failure of the military authorities to post ex-National Service men to units of the same arm as that in which they are trained which is known as rebadging. The failure exists, and everyone regrets it, and the whole difficulty arises in this way. To belong to the "Ever-readies" a man must be accepted by the commanding officer, and I believe that to be sound. Suppose that the man is a radar mechanic, a most valuable man, who is posted to a unit which has no work for radar mechanics, that unit cannot train him in that job. The commanding officer cannot recommend him as a

radar mechanic because he has never seen him act as a radar mechanic, and may not be able to recommend him as an ordinary soldier because the man has never trained with him as such.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. This was only an intervention to start with, but it seems to be developing into a pretty good speech.

Mr. Reynolds: Nevertheless, Mr. Williams, it touches on something that I should like to mention a little later.
One must look also at one or two other trades. Take the man, for example, who served in the Royal Army Service Corps or some other unit, as a motor mechanic and is now working full-time in that trade in a garage. Before being called upon to do his National Service he might have served an apprenticeship as a motor mechanic. He has then done his National Service and has gone back to his trade. Is it to be suggested that because he is on the list of a Territorial Army unit but is not doing the 20 or 30 drills a year he could not effectively, and without further training, fill a motor mechanic's position at the necessary rank in a unit that needed such men for the period of an emergency which necessitated the calling up of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve—

Mr. Kershaw: In the case of a motor mechanic, that is such a usual trade that it would be almost impossible to find a unit in the locality that could not use his skill.

Mr. Reynolds: Yes, in the case of that trade I would agree, but if a man in a trade like that is willing to accept an obligation to be called up for up to six months in any period of 12 months, why should he be compelled—and we are only talking of those who have done their National Service and so have had fairly recent military training—to join and to play a full part in a Territorial Army unit with which he will probably never be on active service?
If he were a volunteer member of the Terriorial Army and an "Ever-ready" and was recalled as an "Ever-ready", I would say that, despite the provisions of the Bill and the undertaking that the


Secretary of State has given, it is almost certain that he would not go back to that Territorial Army unit if it were later embodied. He would be already fully employed with another unit that had, perhaps, gone to where the trouble was long before the Territorial Army unit was embodied. The key men and officers in the Territorial Army unit would not be affected, because he would probably never serve with them in any case. On the other hand, he has had military training as a National Service man at some time not long past and may well know a trade for which there is a vacancy in the Regular Army.
The same could apply to a medical orderly. A man may have been a medical orderly during his National Service and afterwards be working as a full-time medical orderly in a hospital. While not willing to do regular training in the Territorial Army, he may be willing to accept an obligation in the Emergency Reserve. If he has been a medical orderly in the Army some little time previously and is now working full-time as a fully-trained medical orderly in a hospital, I see no reason why we should insist on his doing a number of drills in the Territorial Army in the meantime.
The same thing could apply to such particular and peculiar categories of men as interpreters, or those who look after the storage of the liquid oxygen that is needed for the refuelling of rockets, and so on. I am fairly certain that there are not many Territorial Army units that need men to attend to the storage of liquid oxygen, but I am equally sure that there are round holes for that sort of man in the Regular Army. There are only a comparatively small number of men in the sort of trades I have mentioned, and I do not see why the Bill should specifically exclude them from joining the Territorial Army Reserve unless they volunteer in the way prescribed.

5.15 p.m.

It has been argued that there might be resentment if a man of that type were able to get into the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve and draw £150 while other volunteers to the Territorial Army were unable to do so. There are, however, adequate safeguards against that. First, the commanding officer of the unit has to make a recommendation. If the commanding officer is informed by the War Office, or by whatever level may deal with the matter, that so many men in certain categories are required and that he should suggest suitable men, he will obviously, when making his recommendations, give priority to men who are volunteer members of the Territorial Army.

On the other hand, if there are still gaps to be filled, Why should that officer be stopped by the provisions of this Bill from putting forward the names of anyone else who is on the list but who is not active as a volunteer member of the Territorial Army? Even after that recommendation has been made there must, in view of the vacancies available, be further screening by people other than the Territorial Army unit's commanding officer. There are, therefore, plenty of safeguards to make sure that the Territorial Army volunteer soldier has first chance in this Reserve, but I think that it would be wrong for this Clause to make it impossible for a man who is simply on the list of a regiment, having done his National Service, to be brought into the Reserve in this way.

I hope that even at this stage the Minister will be prepared to change his mind—there are plenty of safeguards for the volunteer Territorial Army soldier—but if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment, we shall have no choice but to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 146.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
 [5.18 p.m. 


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barlow, Sir John
Biggs-Davison, John


Aitken, W. T.
Barter, John
Bingham, R. M.


Allason, James
Batsford, Brian
Bishop, F. P.


Arbuthnot, John
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Black, Sir Cyril


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bell, Ronald
Bossom, Clive


Atkins, Humphrey
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bourne-Arton, A.


Balniel, Lord
Berkeley, Humphry
Box, Donald


Barber, Anthony
Biffen, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.




Boyle, Sir Edward
Hocking, Philip N.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Braine, Bernard
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hollingworth, John
Ramsden, James


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Holt, Arthur
Rawlinson, Peter


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bryan, Paul
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, David


Bullard, Denys
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
James, David
Rippon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Roots, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Boyle, Charles (Salford, West)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cleaver, Leonard
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Seymour, Leslie


Cole, Norman
Leburn, Gilmour
Sharples, Richard


Collard, Richard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Corfield, F. V.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Costain, A. P.
Longbottom, Charles
Smithers, Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Longden, Gilbert
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Loveys, Walter H.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Curran, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Dance, James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stevens, Geoffrey


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


du Cann, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stodart, J. A.


Duncan, Sir James
McMaster, Stanley R.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Tapsell, Peter


Eden, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, Frank(M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Temple, John M.


Elliott, R. W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marshall, Douglas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Marten, Neil
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fell, Anthony
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Freeth, Denzil
Mills, Stratton
Turner, Colin


Gammans, Lady
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gardner, Edward
Morgan, William
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Sir John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vickers, Miss Joan


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wade, Donald


Goodhart, Philip
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Goodhew, Victor
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walker, Peter


Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wall, Patrick


Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gurden, Harold
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Webster, David


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Peel, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Percival, Ian
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hastings, Stephen
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Wise, A. R.


Hay, John
Pitman, Sir James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hendry, Forbes
Pott, Percivall
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Woollam, John


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior, J. M. L.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho



Hobson, John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren




NOES


Ainsley, William
Brockway, A. Fenner
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Deer, George


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dempsey, James


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, James
Diamond, John


Benson, Sir George
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Dodds, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Cliffe, Michael
Driberg, Tom


Boardman, H.
Collick, Percy
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Bowles, Frank
Crosland, Anthony
Evans, Albert


Boyden, James
Darling, George
Fernyhough, E.







Fitch, Alan
Kenyon, Clifford
Redhead, E. C.


Fletcher, Eric
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reynolds, G. W.


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
King, Dr. Horace
Rhodes, H.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lipton, Marcus
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McCann, John
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Greenwood, Anthony
McInnes, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grey, Charles
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Skeffington, Arthur


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mallalieu. J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steele, Thomas


Hannan, William
Manuel, A. C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mapp, Charles
Storehouse, John


Hayman, F. H.
Marsh, Richard
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Healey, Denis
Mayhew, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mellish, R. J.
Swain, Thomas


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hilton, A. V.
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Holman, Percy
Milne, Edward
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Monslow, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin


Hunter, A. E.
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, William


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Morris, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Moyle, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oram, A. E.
Whitlock, William


Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T.
Willey, Frederick


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Jeger, George
Pargiter, G. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurence
Zilliacus, K.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Frederick



Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Randall, Harry
Mr. Lawson.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Paget: Having heard most of the interesting debate on the Amendment, I have been forced more and more to the conclusion that it has been a great mistake to involve the "Ever-readies" with the Territorial Army at all, because they are not part of the Territorial Army. In the sense of "Where are they going to fight if it comes to a fight?" the answer is, "Not with the Territorial Army".
As I understand the conception of the Bill, the people referred to in Clause 1 are being retained to keep up the numbers. After them, come the "Ever-readies".
The "Ever-readies", I gather, are people who shall be available to the Army to bring peacetime strength up to wartime strength, and, in particular, to provide technicians where they are required by the Regular Army. We learned during the course of the last debate that there is to be an establishment of "Ever-readies"—so many colonels, so many majors, so many radar mechanics, so many cooks, and so many hospital orderlies—available for the second call if any kind of movement

from a peacetime to a wartime basis takes place. Therefore, long before anybody thinks about embodying the Territorials, the "Ever-readies" have gone from them. The "Ever-readies" will never serve with a Territorial battalion. They are there for precisely another purpose, that is to say, to build up the Regular Army where they are required.
5.30 p.m.
Why put them into the Territorial Army? I cannot believe that it will be very good for the Territorial Army to have with it a number of men receiving higher bonuses and taking no particular interest in the various units. The Territorial Army unit will never be their unit in any war circumstances. Will it be good for Territorial battalions to have these men who are not really a part of them, who will be taken away from them and who will be on a different basis, mixed up with them for no particular reason?
I quite see that, if a man is to receive a bonus, he should do something for it and keep himself up to date, but surely the Territorial Army is not the place for him to do it. The Territorial Army is seeking to make itself efficient as an army, as a regiment, as various units,


having the men whom it trains for its purpose as an instrument of war, a unit in the line of battle, when the Territorial Army is embodied. But these other men will not be there. In the unit which the Territorial Army is creating most keenly and energetically, they will just be gaps; they will not be there. Is that a sensible or reasonable arrangement?
Do we not want a training organisation for the Ever-readies" as such, for embodiment as units if necessary? I do not think that it will happen very often but, for instance, if they were to be embodied as tank units, should they not be trained for that purpose and kept up to date? Far more often of course, they will require training within their particular trades. A man might be an Ever-ready "cook and a Territorial gunner. The Territorial unit in which he volunteers might say, "Splendid. We like you very much, but we have no vacancies for your trade. We are delighted to have you as a body but not in your trade". For the "Ever-ready" purpose he is a cook, but for the Territorial Army purpose he is a gunner, infantryman or bomber. That sort of thing can happen.
I remember that in my very small ship during the war I had detailed to me a chap whose civilian occupation was chef at one of the big Bournemouth hotels. I thought that this was absolutely spendid and we should do wonderfully well. He said, "No, Sir; I have volunteered for the Navy to have a change from cooking". A fair number of people who in the Regular Army had a particular trade, be it cook, hospital orderly or anything else, might well insist that they want a change and join the Territorial Army because they want to do a bit of shooting. How does one work that out? How does one fit it into the structure? It may be merely a question of taste.
In this matter, one has to work very much with the local Territorial Army unit, and that unit may have a sufficiency of one category. A chap may be keen. He will want to volunteer for the Territorials, but he will serve in another category. The category for which his training is required by the "Ever-readies" is not the one he exercises.
This does not seem to me to be an organisation which makes sense. On the one hand, we require a Territorial Army. I do not want to get out of order on this. I conceive that, as things develop, particularly in regard to Civil Defence—which I think ought to be a Territorial Army responsibility—in the sense of providing services and making this country at all points defensible and capable of fighting in the event of an air invasion, there is a real function for a Territorial Army. But that Territorial Army has always been conceived of as a Territorial Army, a local defence force. As such, it must train for that purpose and train people who will fight with it and who will learn the functions of the unit which will fight as a unit, not train people whom it will not see, and whose function after recall will be quite different from the Territorial Army function and will probably be with a unit having a quite different function. What we need here is a system for keeping "Ever-readies" up to date, not a system muddling up the Territorial Army by putting into it a lot of people who will not be available to the Territorial Army for the Territorial Army's purposes.

Mr. Kershaw: When we first debated this matter, one of my right hon. Friends said that he thought the "Ever-readies" were probably an excellent reserve provided that one did not use them for the purpose for which they had been invented. He went on to say that it would be very difficult to take a man out of a gasworks and send him into action straight away in a tropical country. Those are trenchant criticisms underlining the obvious difficulties which the scheme must arm itself to avoid.
During the course of our discussion on the Clause so far, there has been a general consensus of opinion that the way in which we shall avoid these difficulties is by the training which it will be necessary to give these men. We shall avoid difficulty only if we give them really adequate training. I believe that the suggestion that those who have done their service and for 3½ years are technically available for call-up again should be part of the "Ever-readies" runs up against the difficulty that there is no way of knowing from time to


time, unless they are kept under observation, so to speak, exactly what their state of training and health is. As my right hon. Friend said, if we were to take a man from, say, work in a gasworks and send him to a tropical country, we might make it impossible for him to function and he might not be of any value to the Army when he got there. No doubt, in considering how this scheme will be administered, my right hon. Friend will bear very much in mind the essential qualification that the training of these men should be realistic and should enable them to take their place in the line at a moment's notice.
I do not think that recruiting of the "Ever-readies" will prove to be difficult. It will be a matter of choosing the right men and of training them in the right way to make sure that they are what we want. I think that in a way it might be difficult to find enough regular units to which they can go. I suppose that the majority of these volunteers will be the younger men without large domestic ties who will be willing to volunteer but will wish to join units of a certain type. The light units, such as the parachute units, will, I think, be able to attract a very large number of volunteers under this system. My right hon. Friend may wish to turn over in his mind whether it will not be worth while creating one or two additional regular units, confident in the idea that any gaps will be filled, if necessary, by the "Ever-readies".
How many "Ever-readies" do we want? There is bound to be a stop on the numbers which can be sensibly recruited. First, we have to consider the capacity of the Territorial Army to handle them. It has been said with some force by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that we cannot have too large a cadre of "Ever-readies" within the bosom of the Territorial Army because, if so, it will be swamped and will have its morale decreased instead of increased by the thought that three-quarters or half of the unit is ready to go away at a moment's notice whereas the others are left behind to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water. On the other hand, in an emergency the very large gaps left in a territorial unit if a large

number of "Ever-readies" left it would cripple that unit and make it impossible for it to function efficiently.
I hazard a wild guess and say that we do not need more than one "Ever-ready" in eight in a Territorial unit. I am not talking about specialist units, which may be in a different category, but I should have thought that in the case of ordinary front line units one "Ever-ready" in eight was about the maximum that my right hon. Friend would want. If he has that proportion in the Territorial Army, according to my calculations that would give him about 15,000 men. By happy chance, that is exactly the number that my right hon. Friend said he wants, at any rate for the time being. I hope that matters will work out in that way.
The second stop on recruiting would be the number of vacancies in the Regular Army that these men could efficiently fill. It is difficult to know what that number is. It depends on the size of regular recruiting and on the location of the Regular Army because it is easier to send an "Ever-ready" to units in Germany than it is to send him to units in Hong Kong. The number of vacancies required to be filled depends on the future of the Regular Army.
I do not think that the financial consideration is of great importance. If one eighth, as I have suggested, of the Territorial Army were part of the "Ever-readies", I calculate that at the rate of £150 it would cost about £2½ million a year. If we can have an efficient reserve at a cost of £2½ million extra to what we spend at the moment, I think that that is a good bargain. If sensibly handled, it will be of value, not only to the Regular Army in wartime or in an emergency, but to the Territorial Army in times of peace.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) that the "Ever-readies" should be adequately trained. If not, there is no purpose in this scheme. However, the hon. Gentleman proceeds on the assumption that no difficulty will be experienced in obtaining an adequate supply of recruits for this service. Of course, the bounty will be an incentive. No doubt many of the younger men will grasp at it. But


we have yet to learn exactly what services are required of them. Under the Bill, they are expected to serve six months each year over a period. That period has not been clearly defined. Men who leave their civilian occupations and enter this service, with all the uncertainty attached to a return to their ordinary vocations, may consider seriously Whether the incentive is worth while.
Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud—I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) assented when the hon. Gentleman said this—that this would be a very useful service in times of emergency. In the interests of our security, as a possible deterrent against aggression and in order to deal with trouble which may occur from time to time in those theatres with which we are concerned, the scheme might be very useful. But a great deal depends on whether we obtain an adequate supply of recruits, on whether they are properly trained and on whether they care to continue in the service.
Yesterday in our debates the subject of a bounty for these men was under review. It was said that the difference between the bounty which is to be the incentive for these men, £150, and certain other emoluments should not be provided for other men who are to be brought back to serve after having undertaken their two years' National Service liability, who are in the reserve and who are asked to serve another six months.
There is an Amendment on the Notice Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) which is supported by myself and by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), referring to the bounty. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley asked me this morning to apologise to the Committee for his non-attendance. He is not at all well and I think that he should not have attended the Committee yesterday. He made a great many speeches which probably taxed his strength. To return to the Amendment, I had the opportunity this morning of consulting the Chairman of Ways and Means, who informed me that it would not be selected but that its subject-matter could be mentioned in the debate on the

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
My reason for reverting to this subject is this. Yesterday there was considerable controversy about a matter which I raised. Indeed, there was a suspicion that what I was saying was not in accordance with the facts. Even the Minister was a little confused. He was reading some of the Army documents on the subject of pay which seemed to contradict what I was saying. Unfortunately, I did not have with me the communication that the Secretary of State sent to me some time ago before the Recess when I asked a Question or two on the subject of pay.
What I said yesterday was that the National Service man who was to be retained for another six months or the National Service man undertaking his reserve liability who could be called up for six months' additional service would receive 11s. a day, whereas the Regular soldier, when he enlisted under the provisions of the six-year engagement, would receive 16s. a day. I regarded that as an extraordinary disparity. I could not see why a man who had two years' service and was called up for another six months should receive only 11s. a day whereas the man who enlisted for the six-year engagement should immediately receive 16s. a day.
My statement was contradicted. Indeed, there was great doubt whether I was accurate. Now, I produce the communication which the Secretary of State sent me, as I informed him I would do. It states that for a private 2nd Grade this is the sort of average that we are dealing with—the basic pay, Scale "A", is 16s. a day and that the National Service equivalent for over 18 months' service at age 21 is 11s. a day.
As hon. Members are aware, a National Service man before the expiry of 18 months' service receives a lower rate of pay. After 18 months, the pay goes up. At present, apparently, it is 11s. a day after 18 months' service and, of course, it would be the same when the men return for an additional six months' service. I regard that as too great a disparity.
I raised the subject because some of us thought that the men who were brought back into the Service should receive the bounty of £150 or, at least,


some compensation, and there was a good deal of support for that view. Indeed, some hon. Members opposite thought that on the basis of the figures I then submitted, which obviously were open to doubt, because I did not have the communication with me, if the Secretary of State could not remunerate those men, not necessarily to the extent of £150, but to the extent of say, 50 per cent. or a percentage of some kind, he might at least remove the differentiation between the 16s. and the 11s.
I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman at this stage to give a definite undertaking. That would be asking too much, because, obviously, this is a matter for the financial department at the War Office and for the Treasury to consider and he might have considerable trouble with the Treasury. I know what my experience has been in the past. At least, the views of hon. Members should be expressed and have an influence on the Secretary of State.
In face of these facts, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, between now and Report, which I understand will be next week, some arrangement whereby the differentiation between the 11s. normal pay of the National Service man and the 16s. normal pay for the man who undertakes a six-year engagement should be removed, even if the National Service man does not receive the full 16s. a day. That is my submission. There is logic in it and justice behind it.
I have not the least doubt that the Clause will be accepted. The provision of the "Ever-readies" is not one to which we take strong exception. All I hope is that it works effectively and that the Secretary of State obtains the men he wants. Perhaps I may warn him that some time, perhaps six or twelve months from now, we may interrogate him and ask him how many recruits he has enlisted for this service. I hope that he will be able then to give us a satisfactory answer.

Mr. William Yates: I do not think that anybody will dispute the need for an additional reserve force as is laid down in the Bill. I can only speak of the matter as a practical Territorial Army officer at unit level. It seems to me that the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud

(Mr. Kershaw) require the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If my right hon. Friend gets the recruits which he envisages, I am doubtful about their training and whether there will be sufficient Regular units available to train them besides training their own people.
The speech by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was equally valid. If these men are to come and drive one's vehicle for, say, practising for camp or normal Territorial duties which are done in the units, and then there is some form of emergency and they are all removed, the adjutant of the local unit will certainly be presented with a problem.
The real anxiety is how we are to train these men. How will we be certain that if they are radar people they will get radar training? How will we be certain that they get the training which is needed? Like others in the Territorial Army, I have had thoughts about up-to-date training. For example, I have yet to hear the War Office approaching any of the other Services so that training could be given to units, and to "Ever-readies" who join these units, in the simplest things, such as how to stow and board a vehicle on an L.S.T.
I have been in the Territorial Army as an ordinary serving officer since 1956. I have never done that simple thing. The unit in which I serve has never been down to the shore and learnt how to put its vehicles inside an L.S.T. or boat. No loading drill has ever been done. I dare say that mobilisation schemes could be practised. We have never yet practised a full mobilisation scheme.
Then, we are told, the Territorial Army should always be ready to support the civil power at any moment and the "Ever-readies", too, will be required in the T.A. unit. How many exercises have we done to support the civil power or to move to an area where there has been a civil disturbance and where the T.A. was required? We have done none.
The Territorial Army is required in its rôle to be fully mobile and the "Ever-readies" must know how to take part in unit manoeuvres and, in particular, to move a unit from A to B by aircraft. How many T.A. units in the British Isles have ever attempted, even at troop


level, let alone squadron level, to learn how to load any of their vehicels into an aircraft? I have had five years and I do not know one unit which yet could possibly know how to set about loading its vehicles into a Royal Air Force Transport Command aircraft.
If we are to train "Ever-readies", if we are to have an adequate Reserve and a Territorial Army that is an army and not just numbers in a paper army, the Secretary of State should talk to his colleagues in the other Services and see whether, during the next two or three years, he cannot persuade them to lend their support in helping to ensure that we can do some of the most simple things which any unit in the Territorial Army would be expected to do. The more we think of the "Ever-readies" as being in a unit and of the Services as being one unit the better for the country.
6.0 p.m.
If the Government's policy for training the "Ever-readies" is that we should make sure that we have a joint force, Army, Navy and Air Force, we should begin at Territorial Army level to do the simplest things with the other arms with which we must co-operate. I wish my right hon. Friend luck with the "Ever-readies". I hope that they are successful and that they will come forward in numbers, but there is nothing more disappointing to the volunteer or the "Ever-ready" who goes to the local unit and finds that he is practising for the Boer War or for the one before that.
It is quite a serious problem. The comradeship is there and the good will and keenness are there. Although the Minister is trying to obtain all the equipment that he can get, what is lacking is a little endeavour to learn about cooperation between Navy, Army and Air Force. The least that my right hon. Friend could do would be to see that if the Territorial Army is to be a valuable unit it can at least co-operate with the other Services.

Mr. Bellenger: There is no doubt that if the Committee passes the Clause and the Bill goes through in its present form the Secretary of State for War will have created an additional reserve for the Army. But with the difference that in the case of the other reserves he has to appear before the Committee once a year

and present Estimates and tell us exactly what he wants. Because of the emergency which he told us is the primary reason why he wants to create this reserve, he gets away with it too easily. He has not told the Committee how many "Ever-readies" he wants and for how long he will keep this reserve in existence. All he has told us is that he wants an "Ever-ready" reserve, that he is prepared to pay them what I think is a good bounty, and away we go.
If this is the way that the Committee is to discuss business which will involve expenditure, it is no wonder that people outside criticise us for not being watchdogs of the public purse. It is no wonder that we are criticised if we allow the Government by sleight of hand to put a cheque on the table and say "Sign that" and we are not allowed to know the purpose for which the cheque is required.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite sure what he wants the reserve for. He told us on Second Reading, on 27th November:
The primary object…is to provide a trained reserve ready to supplement the Regular Army at short notice and increase the deterrent power of the conventional Army in times of serious tension short of actual hostilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th November, 196I; Vol. 650, c. 52.]
Yet the right hon. Gentleman tells us today that this reserve is to be a shot in the arm for the Territorial Army.
If that be so, the Committee is entitled to ask, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) hinted, what the rôle of the Territorial Army is to be. I understood that the "Ever-readies" are to be part of the Territorial Army. The Committee, therefore, is surely entitled to know what will be the rôle of the Territorial Army. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I shall get X number of 'Ever-readies' and I shall call them up if I need them." How will he call them up, and what for? For the Territorial Army? But I understood that a large part of the Territorial Army has a sort of fire-fighting rôle and is still earmarked for Civil Defence to act as a fire brigade if hostilities should occur.
The Secretary of State should explain to the Committee just what he will do with the "Ever-readies" when he has


got them. I would not know about their training in the Territorial Army. I have never been a member of the Territorial forces. I have merely done my bit in the Regular forces. Nevertheless, the Committee should never forget how the Territorial Army came into existence. It was a home service, but later in the First World War all that was changed and the Territorial Army was sent overseas. Presumably the same obligations remain today, otherwise this force of "Ever-readies" would be of little use to the right hon. Gentleman, if we take as gospel truth what he said on Second Reading, that this force will be a trained reserve ready to rush away without more ado when the bugle sounds.
I do not know what War Office genius thought of this title, "Ever-readies". It is a very good name. The Army has a reputation for improvising in all emergencies. It may be that I am doing the right hon. Gentleman some injustice. It may be that as he shaved with a certain kind of razor one morning he thought of this name, but the name of whoever thought of the name should be put on record, because in years to come, if we still have this "Ever-ready" force—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: My right hon. Friend will recognise that "Ever-ready" is also the name of a battery.

Mr. Bellenger: The only relevance that I can see in that is that it is electric and, therefore, presumably dynamic.
I do not know whether that is the reason why this name was instituted, but in days to come a historian, perhaps a Fortescue or a Member of this House, will be writing the history of the British Army and will be able to pin-point the man who first thought of this name. It is a good name and I believe that it will have an impact and will produce a corps d'élite, as an hon. Member said earlier.
The more I consider this Clause and what this reserve is to be the more I wonder why Clause 2 was ever inserted in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman is successful, he will get all he wants unless he is budgeting here for only 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 men. If he gets 15,000 or 20,000 "Ever-readies" that

surely will destroy the argument which he has put forward as a reason for requiring Clause 2, namely, to have another reserve ready to be called up without Proclamation if he wants it.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has said, the Committee will not be mean in this matter. We shall not grudge the right hon. Gentleman this force. We shall never deny Her Majesty's Government, of whatever party, the means with which to protect the liberties of this country which are so often in danger from sources that can be easily identified. But at least the right hon. Gentleman should do us the justice and the courtesy of explaining more to us than he has done so far.
I agree that on all points of detail he has done his best to answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and others who touched on the machinery and the technicalities of these Clauses, but we did not always have answers which satisfied us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton ingeniously inserted in this debate, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", the left-overs of yesterday's debate on Clause 2, but he was not able to elicit a clear answer on the question of pay.
At a later stage tonight we may be able to get more information from the Secretary of State which would, perhaps, be inappropriate on this Clause, which deals with one particular branch, the "Ever-readies". I hope that he will do his best to answer the points which I put to him when discussing an Amendment a little while ago, but which he could not find time to answer then, because I have, I hope, included them in this speech.
It will well repay the right hon. Gentleman to get the sympathy of the Committee on this Clause, because I believe that it is the only one in the Bill that will receive more or less unanimous support. There is a great deal of mental reservation towards the other Clauses, and we have expressed that both on Second Reading and on those Clauses so far debated.

Mr. Michael Coulson: I want to say, first, how much I welcome the general concept


of "Ever-readies". I cannot go the whole way with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), who criticised the extent of training of some Territorial units. His experience may be different, but I have served in a Territorial Regiment for the last thirteen years and during that time, particularly recently, we have had a number of exercises with civil defence units, have spent considerable time at annual camps exercising and learning about civil defence duties, and have also spent considerable time practising mobilisation schemes. Perhaps the yeomen of Yorkshire are better prepared than the yeomen of Shropshire.

Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) is not present while the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) makes his comments. If I remember his speech correctly, the hon. Member for The Wrekin was referring to certain exercises, which he detailed, such as exercises in loading aeroplanes and amphibious equipment, saying that territorial units did not, in practice, engage in this type of exercise.

Mr. Profumo: That is not their rôle.

Mr. Loughlin: I am not saying that it is their rôle, nor whether that is right or wrong. All I am saying is that the points being made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North were not, as he says, made by the hon. Member for The Wrekin. But I see that the hon. Member for The Wrekin has now returned to his place. Possibly the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will now repeat these references, so that we can get this matter clear for the record.

Mr. Coulson: My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin told me that he would be leaving the Chamber before I was called to make my speech, so I know that we enjoy each other's confidence in this. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has referred to the question of loading aircraft by Territorial soldiers. In my experience, that is not something which the Territorial Army has a mandate to do.

Mr. W. Yates: Perhaps that is so in my hon. Friend's experience, but surely,

in the Territorial Army which we are trying to build, that is one of the things we must persuade the Secretary of State to introduce for the Territorial Army in the future.

Mr. Coulson: That may be, but this is surely a red herring dragged across our path by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, who so frequently does drag them across.

Mr. Loughlin: That is presumptuous.

Mr. Coulson: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West talks of presumption!
My hon. Friend the Member for the Wrekin referred to the question of civil defence and of having mobilisation schemes. I was dealing precisely with these points. There are practical doubts about the "Ever-ready" scheme. These arise, first, from what I may call the piecemeal nature of the scheme. There are difficulties here, because the Secretary of State wants particular men and particular types of trained men in particular places at certain times. If he wants that sort of thing, as I do, we cannot have a very cohesive scheme because individual people will be going away from particular Territorial units to reinforce Regular units.
6.15 p.m.
If the Secretary of State wishes the scheme to be a success, he will have to think of it in a wider concept than at the moment. Unless we do come to think of it in that wider concept, we might be in danger of doing away with the Territorial spirit entirely. There are two reasons for saying that. The first difficulty is that men are never particularly happy about volunteering by themselves. That is a well-known fact in the Army, and it is certainly true of the Territorial Army. I may be expressing a rather old-fashioned opinion, but I believe that most men join the Territorial Army in the first place, as I did, because they know that if there were trouble ahead they would have a chance of going into action, if they had to, with people they knew and had trained with for many years. That corporate spirit is an essential part of any unit, whether Territorial or Regular.
This idea of the corporate spirit was one of the original and key ideas in the founding of the Territorial Army. The


Territorial Army has altered its ideas so that it can keep pace with modern developments, just as much as the Regular Army has. We have seen, in the last few years, considerable upsets both in the Regular Army and in the Territorial Army because of reorganisation schemes. But all these reorganisations have been very much to the benefit of both.
At the same time, all members of the Territorial Army are worried about what might happen in the future. They can see the dangers. I do not want my right hon. Friend inadvertently to give the impression that the Territorial Army in future is to be very largely a pool for reinforcing the Regular Army. That was the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and I entirely agree with him.
If the Territorial Army is regarded largely as a pool for the Regular Army, then it is the beginning of the end of the Territorial spirit. I do not impute these motives to my right hon. Friend, for it is clear that he has not got them, but has the best interests of the whole of the Army, both Regular and Territorial, in mind. But I do point out the danger to the spirit of Territorial regiments if this sort of thing goes on.
The second difficulty is what has been called the denuding of the Territorial Army in times of crisis. This was also referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, but it is worth saying again, for it is a rather more serious difficulty than the one I have just mentioned. If the Government succeed in getting the men they want for the "Ever-readies", then, in time of tension, they will be called up before general mobilisation, That is the whole point of the scheme. This will mean that the key men needed in the Territorial Army will have been taken away and given to the Regular Army, which is robbing Peter to pay Paul—as simple as that.
If colonels of Territorial regiments think that this sort of thing is to happen, they may not use their best endeavours to persuade their men to join the "Ever-readies". That is a danger my right hon. Friend must face. For these two reasons—the difficulty of persuading individuals, with comradeship in their own units, to join units of "Ever

readies", and the difficulty of persuading colonels of regiments to persuade, in turn, their men to join the Ever-readies "—I suggest two ideas.
First, will he carefully consider the formation of units of "Ever-readies"? I know that in some senses that might be contrary to his idea of "Ever-readies", but it has very great advantages. I am not suggesting large units as big as battalions or regiments, but there is a case for the creation of smaller units down to squadron or company level and certainly still smaller units than that, bands of drivers and signallers such as are to be found in the Reconnaissance Regiment of the Armoured Corps, where there is a very good corporate spirit.
These small units could be flown out at short notice to reinforce Regular units, but they would still retain the Territorial spirit and the men would not feel that they were being called up individually, one posted here, one there, thus losing that spirit of the Territorial Army which they had joined to enjoy.
My second suggestion is for transfer back to the Territorial unit after the men have been taken from the Territorial Army to reinforce Regular units. That may not be practically possible, but if it is, it would be a great consolation to commanding officers of Territorial units to be able to know that on general mobilisation they would get back the key men whom they had encouraged to join the Territorial Army and who formed an essential part of their units If my right hon. Friend will carefully consider my first suggestion and promise to do what he can about the second, I, for one, would be much more happy about the results of Clause 3.

Mr. Ede: Right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the Committee who have intervened in the debate have discussed the provisions of this Clause as though they dealt with an emergency, but I cannot find the word "emergency" anywhere in the Bill. Whether the right hon. Gentleman calls up men or or not, so far as I can see he has power to do so without having any obligation to be satisfied of the need. When an emergency is mentioned in an Act of Parliament, there is generally some provision to say that the Minister who acts upon it shall be satisfied that it exists. When he comes


to the House of Commons for the powers which he is entitled to exercise during an emergency, he can be questioned about it.
Having read the Bill very carefully, I cannot find a reference to an emergency. All that the Bill does is to enable the right hon. Gentleman to get a number of persons, with varied military experience, according to the Clause under which he operates, and retain them in, or recall them to, the Army. The Government are asking the House of Commons for a concession in the control over the country's manpower which is exceptional. Is there an emergency now?

Mr. W. Yates: Yes.

Mr. Ede: Some people think that we are living in a perpetual emergency. Is it the same emergency that existed when the Bill was introduced? Can the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) help me about that?

Mr. W. Yates: I am not a Government adviser, but I would say that until President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev show some signs of demobilisation we are in an emergency.

Mr. Ede: I am not suggesting that the hon. Member speaks for the Government. I would not hold him responsible for their misdeeds.
We are entitled to know whether this is only a Measure to be used in case of emergency and, if so, to be given a definition of "emergency". I am certain that if the Clauses after Clause 1 are operated, people in this country and people abroad—not all of whom are likely to be friendly to us—will assume that there is some military contingency—to use that as being a rather less colourful word than "emergency" in this connection—which calls for an addition of men capable of going into the field forthwith. That is a position about which the Committee should be completely satisfied before we allow the Clause to go through.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said something about everyone being willing to give the right hon. Gentleman this power.

Mr. Bellenger: A power.

Mr. Ede: A power. But my right hon. Friend was supporting Clause 3.

Mr. Shinwell: If we are to have the Bill at all, we might as well have that.

Mr. Ede: I am gradually finding out what it means—here is a job lot and we have taken one and two, so No. 3 ought to be thrown in for good luck. That is not the way in which a Measure which deals with the liberty of the subject, who may be liable to military service under it, ought to be approached. I have heard nothing which convinces me that the Minister has to come to the House of Commons before he can operate this power. I admit that it will be an administrative act and that he will, therefore, be able to be questioned and will have to give an account of what he has done. But that is not the way in which emergency powers have been obtained in the past and it is not the way in which they ought to be obtained in future.
I view the whole Bill, but particularly this Clause, with the utmost misgivings, because of the effect upon the liberty of the subject.

Mr. Profumo: As I explained on Second Reading, the Clause provides for the creation of a new, trained reserve ready to supplement the Regular Army in times of tension. I should begin by explaining this, particularly in view of the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I am pleased that this proposal has been received in this way—I was going to say "welcomed"—on both sides of the Committee. The most eloquent testimony to that is the small number of Amendments put down with a view to its improvement.
The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked me a series of questions of which the most important was what the "Ever-readies" were for, what was to be done with them. To some extent that was also part of the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields. This new section of the reserve is being designed to meet the challenge of the cold war. The right hon. Member for South Shields asked my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) whether the emergency now going on was the same as that when we drafted the Bill. That question itself shows the tension there


is in the world and how difficult it is to decide when one tension ends and another sphere of tension arises. That is why I purposely used the words, "the challenge of the cold war".
Up to now, our Reserve Army has been expected to meet the call of "imminent national danger", with at least a prospect of armed conflict starting within a short time. Events last summer have made it quite clear that we now have to be prepared to face prolonged periods of what I might call, "armed vigilance". It will really only be in our enemies' interests if the meeting of these challenges repeatedly dis-organises our national life, or, alternatively, drives us into maintaining a burdensome force continuously under arms.
6.30 p.m.
The right hon. Member for South Shields, with his determination to guard the rights of the individual—quite properly—which we know so well in the House, poses a query. It is very difficult to satisfy the requirements that I have tried to outline to the Committee and, at the same time, to satisfy in toto what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. If we are to be ready and able to meet times of tension, such as I have tried to outline, without disorganising our lives, anyone in my position must be able to act very quickly. The only way that my right hon. Friends and I could see of doing this was to start a new form of voluntary reserve, explaining quite clearly to the volunteers what their responsibilities would be.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "How will you know? You are asking for a blank cheque." I shall refer to the size of that cheque in a moment. But the curb on me is as strong as the right hon. Gentleman would wish, because every year the Secretary of State for War must present the Army Estimates and get the money voted to pay whatever bounties are required for the new service. The House still has a check, if only a financial one. What I have sought to do is to pay the proper tribute to the House by providing in the Bill that
The Secretary of State shall from time to time report to Parliament with respect to the exercise of his powers to recall persons under section two or call out persons under section three.

The right hon. Gentleman says, "That is all very well, but you could do this afterwards". I accept that, but the two checks on the Government are, first, the financial check—we must have the necessary finance to keep this force going—and, secondly, the fact that Parliament can discuss, even if it is only immediately afterwards, whether we have done this correctly.
We must retain power to whisk men up without having to go through any paraphernalia if the scheme is to be of any value. We might well refer to this as an emergency period. I have referred to the "twilight" period. That is the reason for forming this reserve. It is formed against the background of the continuing challenge of the cold war and our desire to have the Regular Army backed up by what I might call a civilian army, upon which we can call.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will understand that the bounty which we pay these men is largely a retainer. It is a different form of bounty from that which is paid to the Territorial Army, because a different situation exists. I have not tried to dangle this bounty in front of the men; I regard it as a fair retainer—neither too much nor too little. I want the situation to be such that the signature of the Secretary of State for War to a document will enable him to call these men up for a period of not more than six months in any one year, and to do that we must pay them a retainer.
Having made the retainer fair enough for the greatest number of people to be interested in it, from then on we shall select, so as to obtain the best physically trained people, and so on.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would refer to the size of the cheque.

Mr. Profumo: I am coming to that. I am sorry if my speech is a little more higgledy-piggledy than the hon. and learned Member's, but I have put down my answers to these points in the order in which hon. Members have asked their questions.
Some hon. Members have expressed doubt whether the "Ever-readies" will be able to attain a satisfactory standard of efficiency in the long run. I recognise that this is not a system which will


operate merely just now; it is a long-term concept. We may have a sufficient number of well-trained men now, but we may not have them in the future.
It is difficult to be categorical in explaining the new concept. In practice, there are always lessons to be learned, and I do not want to be too categorical in anything I say about the way in which the system will work. We shall start in what we believe to be the right way, but we must be flexible and able to make any changes which are necessary in future. I do not think that there will be any difficulties in the administrative services, because in facing their tasks those services will be reinforced by men from the T.A.E.R. whose civilian skills are just what is required for their jobs in the Army. That is the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. Their purely military training is comparatively simple, although they need some. It is mainly a question of their absorption into the Army. Their job in civilian life will be the same as that which they are required to do when they are called up.
It is the teeth arms which cause concern. In recent years our experience has been that the Territorial soldier is a keen and efficient volunteer, who reaches a high standard of training by the end of his cycle of service. It would be a mistake to think of these men in terms of pre-war standards of efficiency in the Territorial Army, because we have devoted so much more thought to the efficiency of that Army than was possible before the war.
The Committee may like to know that many members of the Territorial Army voluntarily perform, outside camp, more than three times their obligatory training liability of 30 drills. This is common practice. I put that on record now, because the Committee should know about it. I emphasise that we are not merely accepting for T.A.E.R. those Territorial Army soldiers who have done a certain amount of service—annual camp and other training. Those who are accepted must come up to certain definite standards of military and technical efficiency before they are eligible for selection by their commanding officers.
In training, the matter of equipment is extremely important. There may be

an opportunity to discuss this question in more detail on another occasion, and all I want to say now is that I have had a very detailed study made of all the equipment required to produce the standard of efficiency at which we must aim, and the way in which it is to be brought into use.
I now turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin about training in the Territorial Army. It will be out of order to refer to this in detail, but I can say that we have been training them on the basis of what they are required to do in their reorganised rôle. Under that rôle none of the men is expected to have to emplane, or to take part in amphibious operations. The T.A.E.R. will join with the Territorial Army, and training will involve the use of the simpler of the modern weapons already on issue to the Territorial Army.
Some men, according to the sort of jobs we require them to do in the Regular Army, will be expected to do a different sort of training, or be more proficient than some Territorial Army men have been in the past, and for instruction in the more complex weapons I envisage that some of the "Ever-readies" may carry out some annual training with Regular units, and in technical schools.

Mr. Bellenger: For six months?

Mr. Profumo: When they are doing their ordinary annual training they will only have to do the same in-camp training as the ordinary soldiers, and in many cases they will be alongside part of a Territorial unit doing the same training, on the same equipment. There is no reason why a cook should not train with the modern cooking apparatus of the Territorial Army, but if a man is expected to fill a much more complicated post and there is an establishment for him in T.A.E.R. he may have to do his training at the same time as, and attached to, a Regular unit.

Mr. Paget: These men will not serve with the Territorials; they will serve with the Regulars. Why must the right hon. Gentleman confine this scheme to the people who will require to operate the particularly complicated weapons? Would it not be far better for them all


to do their annual training with the Regulars, with whom they are going to serve?

Mr. Profumo: I will now refer to the hon. and learned Member's speech. He asked why we should put them in the Territorial Army. When we were discussing the previous Amendment I tried for a long time to explain why we need them in the Territorial Army. Perhaps I may leave hon. Members to read what I have said on the matter.
There are various basic reasons. The first is whether the man is to be a technician or a soldier in the "teeth" arms—a "tooth-armed soldier", or whatever hon. Members may like to call him. He requires more than just training. He must learn to be part of a unit. At present, most of the men we are considering are members of the T.A., or they may even be serving in the Regular Army. This is a long-term concept and the time will come when there are no recruits to the T.A.E.R. coming from the Regular Army. Such people—they may be bakers by trade, or any other trade which hon. Members may like to think of—however proficient they are in their jobs, must learn to be part of a team, even though it may not be the unit with which they would go to war.
It is necessary to have training organisations with some equipment. It would be far too expensive and difficult to attach all the "Ever-readies" to Regular Army units. Were that done, some of them would have to travel abroad, and some might arrive at a time which was inconvenient for the Regular Army unit to receive them. So it is far better and more economical to have the majority of these people training within an organisation in this country, and for which Parliament authorises the expenditure of money to provide trained, Regular instructors. I do not see where else we could put these people and I do not believe that we could train them under the auspices of the Regular Army.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton raised another point about not putting them in the Territorial Army and his point was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. Coulson), who made a

most interesting speech. Both hon. Members wanted to know what would happen to the Territorial Army if these men were called up in an emergency and they suggested that the Territorial Army would be denuded. I do not think that the Committee need worry over much about that. I am making arrangements for the establishment of the Territorial Army to be increased by that number of men which any unit absorbs to be members of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve. That is to say, these men will be superimposed above the normal establishment, so that if all the "Ever-readies" were taken away, the T.A. establishment would still be up to strength and could still carry on the secondary rôle which it would play on general mobilisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), who also made a most interesting speech, asked whether there was to be any sort of proportion of "Ever-readies" within a particular Territorial unit. I do not want to be definite, because in this matter we have to feel our way. But it is my idea that the figure should be about one-third. I think that we must pin this thing down and perhaps not more than one-third of any Territorial unit should be members of the T.A.E.R.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) brought us back to our discussions of yesterday. I remember that on one occasion yesterday the right hon. Gentleman said he thought that I might be regretting writing my letter to him. The only thing I regret is that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I brought a copy of the letter with us. I apologise for not doing so. My object in writing to the right hon. Gentleman was to give him the best and the fairest comparison—I hope that I can get this matter straight now—of the position of the retained National Service man and the National Service man who is not retained.
For this purpose I selected the rate of pay for a Grade II private. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a trained soldier who has already served eighteen months and qualified in skill at arms. In my view he would represent not the average, but a fairly normal man, between the extremes of the unskilled recruit and the skilled technician or


warrant officer. A private Grade II as a National Service man now draws 11s. a day, assuming that he has completed eighteen months and is over 21.
6.45 p.m.
When such a man becomes a retained National Service man, if the provisions in this Bill become law, and we have to hold him for a further six months, he comes on Scale A and will draw 16s. a day. I am grateful for the opportunity to try to make this matter plainer to the right hon. Gentleman. The man in question will come straight on to Scale A. This will be exactly the same for somebody we have to recall under the provisions of Clause 2 or for the T.A.E.R. man called up and embodied.
That is what I have been talking about—the Regular rates of pay. It is Scale A. There is a differentiation between the 11s. of the ordinary National Service man and what he will get when retained which, in round figures, will start at 16s. He will be the same man, but having been retained, he will get the extra amount, and so I cannot agree to give a bounty.

Mr. Shinwell: Does this apply to the two categories of men with which I am concerned? There is the man who, having served for two years, leaves the Regular forces and has some settled occupation, and then he is called back for six months. The other category comprises those men now serving as National Service men who, before the expiry of their two-year period of National Service, are retained for another six months. In bath oases do the men receive 16s.?

Mr. Profumo: Yes. That is what I was trying to indicate. In the first case, the man has come to the end of what has been his full-time National Service and I feel that I must retain him for another six months. In the same way anyone who has done his National Service but is recalled will get the same rate. So will the "Ever-ready" once he is called up. I am glad to be able to make this clear for the right hon. Gentleman.
May I now say a word about what was said by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who also referred to checks and balances. I have to come to Parliament every year to get money, so

that there is a complete check there. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know how many people we were to have. Here again, I wish to be careful, because we are starting something new. But, to give the Committee an idea, may I say that I have in mind a ceiling of about 15,000, and I will tell the Committee why.
I judge the numbers of men we should need in these categories in the Regular Army to fulfil our present functions at about 15,000, so that 15,000 is the sort of number at which I shall be aiming. I have provided for a bit of latitude here, in that the ceiling which Parliament puts on these things is the ceiling put on pre-Proclamation reserves—the "Ever-readies", A.E.R.1 and Section A of the Regular Army Reserve altogether—and that ceiling will be 60,000. This is important, because if we found that the A.E.R.1 was not so necessary, I could increase the number of "Ever-readies" and still be within the 60,000 figure which Parliament would permit.

Mr. Bellenger: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He has given the Committee some valuable information. Am I right in understanding that his 60,000 will not operate all together? If he proposes to have, as I think he said, 15,000 in relation to Clause 3, does that mean that he will want to call up fewer under the provisions of Clause 2, or has he a number fixed in relation to Clause 2 as well as the number he has told us?

Mr. Profumo: I am trying to keep in order. I am talking only about Clause 3.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Herbert Butcher): If he will allow me to say so, I will call the right hon. Gentleman to order when he gets out of order.

Mr. Profumo: I am trying not to stray out of order, Sir Herbert. It is a little difficult, for I am entitled only to talk about Clause 3, but I am explaining the ceiling of the "Ever-roadies" and pre-Proclamation reservists. The only connection with other Clauses is that, if this is successful, it would be less likely that we would have to call on the services of any one under Clause 2.

Mr. Ede: Is the 60,000 that the Secretary of State has mentioned the 60,000


mentioned in subsection (6) of the Clause we are discussing?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, I think that it is subsection (6). That is the statutory limitation of all the pre-Proclamation reservists.

Mr. Paget: I am not entirely clear on this. We have at present an Army of peace time establishment. The Regular reserve is the force which brings the peace-time to the war-time establishment. There is something between the two. It is called up before the Regular reserve and gives something which is neither a peace-time nor a war-time establishment. What is the conception here? That is What we have not quite followed.

Mr. Profumo: I am answering the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw about how many there will be in the T.A.E.R. I have said that my idea at present is that the ceiling would be 15,000, but that is not a statutory ceiling from the House. That is the ceiling of the number of pre-Proclamation reservists. I am giving what I think is the right sort of ceiling for these pre-Proclamation reservists—the A.E.R.1, Section A and this new reserve I am recalling. That, altogether, amounts to 60,000. The Committee would sanction there being 60,000 whom the Secretary of State at the time could call upon on his signature. Of that number, I reckon that the T.A.E.R. should be about 15,000.
I wish to answer two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North. He asked about the formation of units for "Ever-readies". I gave careful consideration to this, but there is a major stumbling block. If we are to use these people as we require to, many of them may be technicians. There may be drivers, power operators, bakers, all sorts of people. If we formed units in any particular part of the country we might seriously affect the civilian organisation in that part of the country. Therefore, we have to separate out these technicians so that if we had to call them out we would not bring to a standstill the civilian organisation in any part of the country. That is a difficulty which limits the formation of T.A.E.R. units. If we could find some way of bringing the unit

or sub-unit spirit into this we should certainly want to do so, in conjunction with the Territorial Army Council.
I think that it would be false, however, if I gave my hon. Friend any feeling of hope on the other point he made which was that commanding officers could get back their "Ever-readies" if the Territorial Army were ever embodied. I do not see that that would be possible. We call up these men and after all the emergency may not always be in the British Army of the Rhine. Suppose it were in the Middle East and was followed by an outbreak of limited war. I do not see how we could get those people back with all the complicated functions which would be involved. That is why they will be supernumerary to the Territorial Army units. I recognise the difficulties of forming this organisation, but in recognising them I am grateful to the Committee for the very fair way in which is has welcomed the idea behind this Clause.

Mr. W. Yates: My right hon. Friend did not go far enough on the question of training "Ever-readies". Will he give an undertaking that he will discuss further the training in T.A.E.R. so that while "Ever-readies" are in camp perhaps half a day could be devoted to trying to understand the problem of loading vehicles both on to aircraft and on to ships? I think that there is a case for some units of the Territorial Army to be trained in this way.

Mr. Profumo: I suppose that I am entitled only to talk about training of the "Ever-readies". Training of the Territorial Army is constantly under review, among my colleagues and by my other Service colleagues. If it is found necessary in the interests of the Territorial Army to change the training, we shall have to take that into consideration. I have been talking only about the training of "Ever-readies" and I hope that I have satisfied the Committee at least to some extent.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman for the last quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, I cannot allow the occasion to pass without putting one or two questions to him. He told us that the purpose of the Bill is that it should be used as a challenge in the cold war.


I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain in what way the Bill can be a challenge in any war during the nuclear age.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is getting very far wide of Clause 3.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Sit Herbert. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was taking certain liberties with Clause 3, and he took those liberties without any objection from the Chair.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that if the hon. Member refers to the Rulings I have given so far, he will find that the right hon. Gentleman was in order, but the hon. Member is going very wide of Clause 3.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order, Sir Herbert. Is not what the right hon. Gentleman was saying that this was a cold war reserve in the sense that in cold war circumstances we have to raise levels of military readiness without proceeding to the length of Proclamation? I think that that is what my hon. Friend is seeking to deal with.

The Temporary Chairman: At the moment when I stopped the hon. Member he was out of order.

Mr. Davies: I know that you, Sir Herbert, would want to give a remote back bencher the same measure of fair play as you would give to the right hon. Gentleman. I quoted, I think exactly, the expression used by him and I must now remind you that you did not, may I say, "bat an eyelid" or make any suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman was out of order. There may be another opportunity for others with myself to consider the philosophy which has inspired the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in trying to put this wretched concoction on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Paget: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) has very strong views on this matter. I recognise that, much as one regrets it, there is a cold war, and that there are circumstances that make different levels of preparedness necessary. As such, I wish the Government well with this proposal and I

certainly shall not advise my hon. Friends to divide against it.
None the less, I do not think this will work with the Territorial Army. I do not think that it fits in with the nature of the Territorial Army to take men who are not of it but are attached and to superimpose them on it. The Territorial Army has no real interest in these men and rather resents them.
7.0 p.m.
I believe that it will be necessary, both for the sake of the Territorial Army and of these reservists, to find a different way of training men, and that that way of training them will be largely by attachment to Regular units. Of course, when we pass out of the stage at which we have got trained men, then, certainly a year in the Territorial Army to teach them to be disciplined men will be necessary, but I believe that at the point when they become a part of this reserve, it will, in practice, be found necessary and desirable that they shall cease to be in the Territorial Army. However, we will see how it works out. At any rate, this Clause has my very good wishes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL TO SS. 2 AND 3.)

Mr. Reynolds: I beg to move, in page 3. line 44, at the end to insert:
Provided always that in any proceedings that may be instituted against such person for failure to comply with such notice it shall be a defence if he prove both that he did not receive the notice and that he did not know that any notice had been sent out addressed to him.
We come now to the provisions dealing with the method, with which this Amendment is concerned, by which persons shall be summoned for service under Clauses 2 or 3 of this Bill. In regard to Clause 3, one would not anticipate very much difficulty. In the case of the men to whom I intend to refer, who are the men covered in Clause 2, we see from the Bill that notices requiring a man under Clause 2 or Clause 3 to carry out the services which it is necessary for him to do, and which it has been decided he shall do under this Bill, shall
be deemed to have been duly served on the person to whom it is directed if—
(a) it is delivered to him personally; or


(b) it is sent by registered post or the recorded delivery service addressed to him at his latest address known to the military authorities."
Regarding the men called up under Clause 3, I would not anticipate a great deal of difficulty, for in that case they are men who, within a period of twelve months, would have signed an agreement with the Secretary of State and will be receiving the bounty. They will have agreed that, if required, they are prepared to do six months in that period of twelve months and will be in regular attendance at the local Territorial Army centre. There should be in this case completely up to date records concerning the home address and where these men can be contacted.
When we come to the provisions for recall under Clause 2, I think we are in a very different position. We are dealing in Clause 2 with men who have completed their National Service, and for whom there is very little provision—there is some, but very little—for ensuring that an up to date record clearly showing their place of residence has been kept by the War Office.
I wish to refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) yesterday on an earlier Amendment, when he maintained that at the present time there were about 800,000 ex-National Service men who, in certain circumstances, could be recalled for further service. My hon. Friend referred to his belief that if notices were sent out to those men today it would be found that at least 75 per cent. of them had moved and, for some reason or other, were no longer resident at the address shown in their record of service. My own view is that 75 per cent. is perhaps a little bit high, but I have no doubt that a very large proportion, probably 30 per cent. or 40 per cent., or even a greater percentage, will have changed their addresses and moved from one town to another, or simply moved from one house to another in the same town, and are no longer resident at the address shown on the records when they completed their National Service.
I should imagine that at some stage in the last few years various exercises must have been carried out in the War Office to see what the present records

are like. At least, I hope that this has been done, so that if the War Office had to send out notices to 800,000 men they would know what proportion was likely to receive them within a few days, assuming an ordinary situation with postal deliveries of 24 to 36 hours. It is absolutely certain that a very large number, once they have finished their National Service, within a period of twelve months and definitely within the period when they are liable for recall within the terms of the Bill, may for some reason or other have changed their addresses, and it is also pretty certain that quite a large number of these changes of address would not be notified to the War Office.
Therefore, we place a man affected under Clause 2 in a position in which a notice may be sent to him, but he may have moved house two or three times. The notice may eventually catch up with him, but in many instances we may assume a distinct possibility that a notice sent either by registered post or recorded delivery service will not reach him. It will then be argued that the notice should go back again to the sender and that the War Office would thus get it back, and, therefore there would be no question of assuming simply because their was no response, that he had received the notice.
In the cases of the receipt for a letter by registered mail or recorded delivery, it is not necessary to be signed by the person to whom it is addressed. It may be signed by somebody who opens the door at that address, who sees the postman offering a letter, is offered a slip of paper and a pencil, and, without even looking at the letter, puts a signature upon the paper, and the postman goes away happy. There is thus no guarantee that a letter either by registered post or recorded delivery service and addressed to the last known address will reach the man concerned, because he may no longer live at that address.
We try, in this Amendment, to make it a defence in any proceedings against any such person for failing to comply with the notice that he did not receive it and did not know that it had been sent to him. It would depend on how many men are being called up whether the individual man would suspect whether a notice had been sent to him


or not. If comparatively few men of those liable for recall were being called up under Clause 2, one could fairly easily argue that he could not reasonably expect that he would be called up, because of the small number affected. If, on the other hand, a large proportion was called up, that would be more difficult, but he should be able to claim that he did not receive the notice because he no longer resided at the property to which it was sent or that he had moved away some time earlier.
There are a large number of people moving from the North of England and from Scotland, and quite a large number of people who are moving from Scotland to crowd up the residential accommodation in London, and in those circumstances it would be exceedingly difficult for him to be traced. The only way to ensure that a man is not unjustly penalised for not receiving a notice of this nature is by giving him the defence of proving that he did not receive the notice or that he did not reasonably know the notice had been sent out addressed to him. I hope we can take it that the Secretary of State will accept the Amendment or make some other provision to make sure that no one will suffer in the way I have suggested that they might suffer if this Amendment is not carried.

Sir Barnett Janner: I appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience of legal matters, knows that it is possible for a slip to occur and for a man not to receive a document sent to him by registered post or by other means.
Some time ago, on the Army Act, we had great difficulty in trying to rebut a case where it had been proved that a document had been posted. The onus of proof that it had not been received was upon the person to whom it had been addressed. This has been changed since then.
I remember a very strange case in which it was alleged that a document had been posted. The case, in which I appeared, was heard in Bradford. I pointed out to the court that even proof of posting was not sufficient. I do not want to go into details, but the prosecution was trying to prove that there had

been posting merely by the fact that the letter had been placed near the postbag. That was as far as the proof went. Nevertheless, the court-martial came to the conclusion that the case had been proved. The following morning the court appeared to have changed its mind. There was nobody there from the official office, and the court imposed a sentence of one day's imprisonment, which meant that the accused was immediately released. Therefore, it did not pay us in any sense to appeal.
I submit that there is this possibility. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that legal practitioners have experience—these cases arise perhaps rarely, but they are not entirely unknown—of cases where, strange though the facts may appear, something has gone astray and has not been served.
It would be grossly unfair to a man if he were not even placed in a position in which he could defend such a case. If a man were able to prove to the reasonable satisfaction of a tribunal that he had not received the notice, and had no knowledge of it, I cannot believe that the Solicitor-General would want the man to be penalised. Perhaps I have misread the Bill. There may be a provision in which this contingency is provided for. If it is not provided for, it would be grossly unjust if, although an accused persons proved that he was not aware of the notice having been sent and had not received it, he was in any way penalised.
I cannot believe that the Solicitor-General would want that to happen. No one in the country would want it to happen. I hope that, if what we believe to be the case is the case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: I am sure that the Solicitor-General would not wish to exclude any defence a person might have if it were a good defence. The Amendment puts the onus upon the person to whom the notice has been sent. It provides that he has to prove that he did not receive the notice. The Clause provides that the
notice shall be deemed to have been duly served on the person to whom it is directed if …
(b) it is sent by registered post 


It may sound an adequate safeguard if the notice is sent by registered post, but recently a case has come to my notice in which a registered letter was addressed to a woman. It was delivered to the house. It was signed for—all registered packets have to be signed for—by another resident in the house, who placed it upon the common stairway. Since that time nobody has seen it. The woman to whom the packet was addressed definitely did not receive it. I know her and have discussed the matter with her. She is a genuine, honest person.
According to the letter of this Clause, she would be deemed to have received the packet. In fact, she did not receive it and had no knowledge that it had been delivered to her house. I mention this case to help the Solicitor-General realise that the fact that a notice is sent by registered post is not an infallible safeguard for the person concerned.

The Solicitor-General: (Sir Jocelyn Simon) I think that it might be convenient if I reply now to the points which have been raised in the three speeches, the sentiments of which I am sure the whole Committee approves.
The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), and Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) were right in saying that no one can be sure that a letter addressed to the last known address of a person will not necessarily miscarry. There is a statutory obligation on the persons who would fall within Clause 2 as liable to recall to report their changes of address.
The hon. Member for Islington, North is no doubt correct in saying—it is only realistic to face the fact—that there may be some men who have not complied with this obligation. There may be some where the records have gone astray. There may be some who will be deemed to be served under subsection (1) who will not, in fact, have received the notices sent to them.
All three hon. Members contended—their contention would immediately find a response in any hon. Member—that no one should be put in peril of imprisonment or any other punishment if he is not in any way at fault. No one

would dissent from that, but I hope to satisfy the Committee that there is no danger of that under the Clause as it is drawn at present.
It is not only that the Amendment is unnecessary, in that the law as it now stands already protects a man who, through no fault of his own, fails to receive a calling-up notice. The provisions of that law apply equally to men served with notices under the Bill. The Amendment goes a long way beyond protecting the type of person the three hon. Gentlemen had in mind—in other words, the man who fails to receive a notice through no fault of his own. It would, for example, extend to protect a man who fails to receive a notice as a result of his own neglect or default. It goes even further than that. It would protect a man who deliberately evaded service.
I will expand slightly on this point if I may trespass on the patience of the Committee. As so often happens when one tries to write in an unnecessary provision into a Statute, it is liable to have unfortunate repercussions on other statutory provisions and attract peril to the sort of man who, at the moment, would be quite safe under such provisions.
It might, in other words, have repercussions on a man who does not receive a notice sent by virtue of some other provision, such as Section 9 of the National Service Act, 1948, the training notice or the original calling-up notice which applies in the case of the National Service man. He could not be heard to say that his failure to receive it was due to no fault of his own.
The Amendment is unnecessary to protect such cases, for the failure of a Service man to report for duty in response to a notice sent under either Clause 2 or 3 is not itself an offence against the ordinary law of the land. That is, a person who fails to comply does not commit any criminal offence and that is so where his failure to report is a deliberate defiance of a notice to serve or is the result of his failure to receive the notice. He commits no criminal offence whether this failure was due to his own neglect or through no default on his part.
The sanction against failure to respond to a notice is by the attraction of the


Army Act, particularly Sections 37 and 38, which lay down the offences of desertion and absence without leave. They are attracted by virtue of subsection (2) of Clause 4 whereby any person who is recalled or called-up by such a notice—

Mr. Paget: That is going out. A new Clause is coming in.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry. I probably have an old copy of the Bill. In any case, the effect is the same.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is to move an Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I may make my point without tying myself down.
The point is that any person who is recalled under Clause 2 or called out under Clause 3 shall, as soon as the notice has been effectively served on him, be deemed, for the purposes of the Army Act, to be an officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier, as the case may be, of the Regular forces and be subject to military law accordingly.
The effect of that is that he is then liable to proceedings before the Service courts—and those are the only proceedings to which he is liable. That is, he can be tried either before a court-martial or appear on summary trial before his commanding officer. The result is that if someone does not report in response to a notice under Clauses 2 or 3 he is in exactly the same position as any other regular, ordinarily enlisted officer or man who is absent without leave. He faces the possibility of proceedings before a Service court.
May I take those two offences in turn? The more serious is that under Section 37, which is desertion. No one can be guilty of desertion unless he intends, permanently, to forsake the force to which he is attached; and, obviously, if it is proved that he failed to report with the intention of remaining permanently absent from duty, he is guilty. But if he shows that he did not receive the notice then obviously no such inference can be drawn. If he can do that then it was obviously no fault of his own.
The same is really true regarding absence without leave. It does not

require the mental element of intention permanently to absent oneself from one's unit, but it nevertheless requires culpability before it can be proved. Hon. Members who wish to check that can look at the notes to Section 38 of the Army Act, in the Manual of Military Law, where the Section note 2 (a) states:
Absence without leave must be voluntary.
Note 2 (b) states:
The absence is voluntary if it is due to the deliberate intention of the accused to be absent, or if it is caused by means which were within his own control…
Note 2 (d) gives an example:
… if a soldier meets with an accident or contracts an illness which renders him unable to travel and so prevents his return to duty, he is not guilty of absence without leave although the accident was due to his own negligence or it was his own fault that he contracted the illness; his absence is regarded as involuntary because a new cause, outside his own wrong-doing, has intervened to prevent his return.
Note 2 (h) states that absence without leave must be culpable.
I am, therefore, prepared to advise the Committee without any doubt that no one would be found guilty of being absent without leave if he failed to receive a recall or calling-up notice through no fault of his own, but because the notice had miscarried in the way described by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Shinwell: I am somewhat confused about the procedure here. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing now, as I understand it, with the Amendment, but he must, shortly, on behalf of the Secretary of State for War, move a following Amendment. That Amendment changes the texture of the provision with which he is now dealing. Is it not possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal not only with the Amendment now before the Committee, but also with the Secretary of State's Amendment? After all, the latter Amendment will govern a further Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
The two Amendments to which I referred deal with the same subject and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now overtaking the Amendment he will shortly be moving and also the one in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that I should not be permitted to speak on the Amendment, since it has not yet been called, nor would it be convenient for me to do so. But I shall remain here while it is debated and if I can be of assistance to the Committee I shall be happy to do my best. In any case, it makes no material difference to the intention about which I have spoken.
I advise the Committee that a Service man who fails to report for duty in accordance with the requirements of a notice served on him by virtue of the Bill could not properly be convicted of either absence without leave or desertion if he can prove his failure to receive it was through no fault of his own.

Sir B. Janner: rose—

The Solicitor-General: He would not be liable to any other legal proceedings of any kind in respect of his failure to report and, therefore, the Amendment is not necessary.

7.30 p.m.

Sir B. Janner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the words "Could not properly be deemed". Is it not necessary to avoid the possibility of a conviction, not made improperly and because the court believed it to be wrong, but similar to the one to which I referred? It is agreed there is this possibility. I gave an actual example of a court-martial deciding quite improperly—not using that term in a critical sense—that the person was guilty in the circumstances I mentioned. Does not the Solicitor-General think it necessary to have some way of avoiding that possibility?

The Solicitor-General: One can proceed only on the basis of the law as we understand it to be. If a man proves that his failure to report was not due to any fault of his own, he should be—

Sir B. Janner: Yes—should be.

The Solicitor-General: Well, as far as human frailty permits, our law is administered in such a way that he will be acquitted and, if he is wrongly convicted, there is machinery for putting the matter right. That is the machinery that should be used, not an Amendment like this which, as I have said—and with respect, I have not yet finished my

argument—is unnecessary, and which, as I shall seek to show, would be positively harmful. However, before I do that, I see that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) wants to ask a question.

Mr. Ede: I want to know where the trial is to be held. My experience as a magistrate has been that the police pick the man up and bring him in front of the local petty sessional court where he is charged with being absent without leave. Waiting in the precincts of the court is a junior officer, a corporal and a couple of privates, and the man is generally handed over to the military escort. He is brought before the officer commanding his unit and, if he is unwise, he will ask for a court martial. I recollect once having to parade a man who was asked, "Will you take my punishment or go to a court martial?" The man, thinking to flatter the officer commanding, said, "I'll have justice, Sir." The officer replied, "Court martial for you."
If this point can be raised at the magistrates' court in the district where the police have caught up with the man, such witnesses as he requires are probably in the near vicinity of the court, but if he is taken to the unit and they go through the military process it may be a matter of some expense and, certainly, of great inconvenience to any witnesses he wishes to call.

The Solicitor-General: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that the only court that has power to try a man who has failed to comply with a notice under Clause 2 or Clause 3 is a military court. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the man is triable either summarily or by court martial.
I was about to go to my second point, which is that the Amendment goes far beyond the cases put by hon. Members opposite. It is quite true that the man who fails to report, when it is his own fault that he has not received the notice, will be guilty, at least, of absence without leave. He may be found guilty of desertion if the right inference to draw is that his conduct shows quite clearly that he intended permanently to absent himself.
There is, for example, the man who goes away without leaving a forwarding address; or the man who arranges that his post will be dealt with in such a way that it is not forwarded to him. He may give instructions that any registered letter, any recorded delivery service letter—indeed, any letter at all—is not accepted on his behalf, and then leaves that address. Such a man would be guilty of absence without leave, and I am sure that the Committee would agree that he would be rightly convicted, because what he was doing was, in effect—indeed, in fact—dodging service.
The Amendment would give him a conclusive defence—whereas a man who was already enlisted and went away with the intention of permanently, or even temporarily, absenting himself, would have no defence—because he could show both that he did not receive the notice and that he did not know that any notice addressed to him had been sent out. In such circumstances he would escape. I am sure that the Committee would agree that that would be quite wrong, and I know that that was not the intention of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and those who supported it—

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I am a little perturbed about the person who decides to leave a district, either because he has committed a slight crime and has suffered the penalty, or for marital or other reasons, and goes to live in a fresh district where no one knows him. What would be his position if he had not reported his change of address? Obviously, he would not want to do that because he wished to live quietly where people would not get to know about his past. If he were eventually caught up, would the fact that he had acted in that way in order to try to hide his identity for those reasons be taken into consideration?

The Solicitor-General: I have to take that in two stages. First of all, was he guilty of an offence? Secondly, if the offence were proved, would the circumstances be taken into account? If he went without leaving an address—which, I take it, is postulated—and, in addition, did not fulfil his statutory obligation on arriving at his new address of notifying either the Territorial Army com

manding officer, in the case of Clause 3, or the War Office, in the case of Clause 2, he would probably, if his conduct was considered to be culpable, be committing an offence, but the reason for his failure to notify his address and for his absence would necessarily be taken into account.
There, are, of course, infinite degrees of culpability in these cases. A not infrequent case in what might be called ordinary absence without leave is the man who gets drunk, gets carried past his station and, as a result, fails to get back to barracks in time. I know that I speak in the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but I think that that is generally considered a fairly light offence, compared with the case of the man who deliberately absents himself because he wants to engage in a career of crime, although it is not proved that he intended permanently to forsake his unit.
The point I am trying to put to the Committee is that it would be wrong to allow a man who is intentionally dodging service in respect of this notice to be able to prove as a conclusive defence that he did not receive notice and did not know that any notice had been addressed to him.
Finally, I come to the third point that I ventured to put to the Committee, and that was the danger of writing in an unnecessary provision like this and the danger of its repercussions on other provisions on the Statute Book. I mentioned Section 9 of the National Service Act, 1948, and I imagine that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and a great many other hon. Members present will remember that it provides for the service of a training notice or the service of an enlistment notice. That Section is spent in its prospective effect in that no one is to be called up by virtue of its provision; but, there is the possibility of legal proceedings in respect of it. Indeed, I was personally engaged only at the beginning of this week in such legal proceedings—cases of men who are still being arrested as absentees because they failed to report for duty when called up for National Service. If anyone is charged in that way, it is open to him to say, "I was not absent without leave", or "I was not a deserter, because I never


received the notice. I did not have the requisite culpability of mind." There is a danger if we write in this unnecessary Amendment to this Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember from his forensic past that a frequent line of construction is that because Parliament expressly wrote in a provision, such as is in this Amendment, to the later Act, therefore they cannot have intended that it should be an offence against, or at any rate that it throws some light on the intention of Parliament in respect of, the earlier Act. It is a rule of construction on which the counts occasionally rely.

Mr. Paget: Surely, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will permit, it is a very definite rule of construction that an earlier Act may never be construed in the light of a subsequent Act. We can construe a subsequent Act in the light of an earlier Act, but never vice versa.

The Solicitor-General: With very great respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman puts that much too categorically. As I say, the courts lean against it, but it is a possible line of construction, and there is in my opinion, some danger in writing in this provision. It is unnecessary anyhow; it might, I do not put it any higher than that, involve danger to people charged with absence without leave in respect of failure to comply with a notice under Section 9.

Mr. John Morrison: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman has exaggerated his case, because one of the major canons of construction of a penal statute is that it should be construed restrictively.

The Solicitor-General: That is true, but it is arguable whether the National Service Act is in that sense a penal Statute. I know that it will be argued that it should be construed together with the Army Act, and I see the force of it, but I do not want to get into a legal argument about canons of construction. I do not need to put this very high. It is sufficient for me to say that the Amendment is unnecessary for the purpose that hon. Members opposite had in mind, but there is some danger—one may not necessarily put it very high—that it might redound to the disadvantage of the man charged who has failed

to comply with a notice which has been served under an earlier Act.
I hope that I have satisfied the Committee that, first, the Amendment is unnecessary, and secondly, that it goes far beyond its ostensible object. In so far as it does that, it is undesirable, and there is some little danger that it may cause disadvantage to men who would otherwise have a defence under a different Act.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We have had the usual suave and pleasant rejoinder from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I want to thank him for the trouble he has taken. He has not, however, dealt with the point that I raised, the difficulty of the man where his trial takes place before a military court of getting his witnesses. After all, he is placed in a very difficult position from the start. He has to prove a negative, and I understand that that is regarded even by the members of the legal fraternity of such high eminence as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a very difficult thing to do.
The man has to prove that he has not received the notice. If the prosecution can produce the signed document showing that the registered letter was in fact received and it is not signed by him, there may then be the question, as one of my hon. Friends has said, that the letter was placed on the stairs and nobody had seen it since, or that nobody who could be traced has seen it since. I think that is the proper construction with regard to that.
I admit that when we are dealing with this kind of case we always get the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave in his third reply, that somewhere on the Statute Book there is a provision not dissimilar from this, differently worded, and that if we put these words in we may damage people protected by the words that were formerly used. For what it is worth, we have to pay attention to that. I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a serious point here. We are not dealing with the type of person who inserts a notice in The Times,"Sir Charles and Lady So-and-So


have left for the continent; no correspondence will be forwarded." We are not dealing with persons in that station of life who use that particular way of getting away from all the troubles which the flesh is heir to.

The Solicitor-General: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is really right when he says that by going to the South of France one gets rid of all the troubles the flesh is heir to.

Mr. Ede: Hope rises eternal. At any rate, they manage to get away from letter writers. I think that this is a point worth considering seeing that a man has to prove a negative for a start. He may be in grave jeopardy of getting into serious trouble with his regiment. He may make a bad start by having an addition to his conduct sheet which may already have several entries on it to which he may desire not to have too much attention drawn when he rejoins his unit. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider again whether something can be done to protect men in the quite genuine cases to which my hon. Friends have referred.

Mr. J. Morris: Before I heard the Solicitor-General, I was in some doubt about this Amendment. Having heard him, I am convinced that there is a great deal in it. In his last few words, the right hon. and learned Gentleman exaggerated his case, and I feel I must pursue the point with regard to the construction of a Statute in relation to Statutes as a whole.
The Solicitor-General agreed that penal Statutes must be construed strictly. That is a very important canon of construction which our criminal courts should observe. Where the liberty of the subject is involved, there should be no attempt to stretch the net further than there is absolute authority for in the Statute. It is really preposterous to suggest that, if the Amendment is inserted here, it would react to the detriment of people affected under previous Acts. If that were so, it would make Parliament wary of putting any limitations in any future Act, because it might be said that previous Acts could be construed in a different light having regard to the later innovations. Whether this Measure is a

penal one or not, I submit that it should be construed with the Army Act, and, of course, where it is sought to impose a penalty on a man absent without leave, as it undoubtedly would be, the Bill would be penal in that context. Having regard to the speeches I have heard, I insist as strongly as I can that this reservation and defence should be inserted in the Clause.
As I understand it, the Solicitor-General told the Committee that men who left without giving an address would have no defence. My hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) asked him about people who left their district for various reasons, because they had committed some minor offence, for matrimonial reasons, or whatever it might be. People have hundreds of reasons for leaving their districts and not giving addresses. Sometimes it is done with deliberate intent and sometimes it is not.
I confess to the Committee that, when I was on the Territorial Army Reserve, I had occasion to change my address and I do not think that I informed the War Office, as I probably should have done. There must be thousands of men who have reserve obligations and who do not inform the War Office in such circumstances but who have no deliberate intention of avoiding their responsibilities. Either through neglect or for some other cause they do not take the step of informing the War Office or persons in authority of where they are. It would be interesting to know from the War Office whether it could say where everyone who has reserve obligations is at present. I am quite sure that, if an attempt were made to count heads and find out where people with reserve obligations are in this country, a very large number would not be found.
I submit that the Solicitor-General should think seriously again about whether this Amendment would be advantageous to men who might be called up.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: One of the points made by the Solicitor-General was that the Amendment went too far in that it would afford a defence to persons who would not otherwise have one. He instanced the


case of men who had gone away without leaving a forwarding address and so had deliberately avoided, as it were, the service of the notice upon them.
I suggest to him that that is not quite so. He will remember that in the Road Traffic Act there is a provision that in respect of certain motoring offences prosecutions cannot be brought unless notice of them has been served within a certain statutory number of days from the commission of the offence. He will remember a very recent case in which the divisional count decided that, if a registered letter was delivered at the man's last known place of residence and was accepted and signed for by someone at that address, that person would be deemed to be the man's agent for the receipt of the notice so that, even though he had arranged not to be there so that physically he had not received the notice, this would not avail him because acceptance of the registered letter would be accepted by the court as proof that notification had been, in fact, served even though the man had never seen it at all. I think that that disposes of that point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made.
It does not seem to me that there is very much even in his other contention that what we suggest might endanger somebody proceeded against under the 1948 Act.

Mr. Paget: It is with considerable regret that I must tell the Committee that I cannot accept the learned Solicitor-General's advice on any of the points he put.
I take, first, the effect which acceptance of the Amendment might have upon the construction of the 1948 Act. I say emphatically—I am sure that I can produce authority for it—that it has been laid down time and again as a canon of construction that Statutes may be construed in the light of that which came before but never in the light of that which came after them.
There is a very good reason for this. As soon as we pass a Bill and put it on the Statute Book it passes out of our jurisdiction. It no longer matters what we think it means. What matters is what the court thinks it means. I recall a classical instance in which the late Lord Hewart, speaking from the

place where the Solicitor-General is now sitting, told the House that a Clause could not possibly be understood save in the meaning which he gave to it.
The House accepted that. Later, when he was Lord Chief Justice, the same Clause, then a Section in an Act, came before him and with equal emphasis he construed it in precisely the opposite way. What he had said in the House could not be referred to. I think, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will, on second thoughts, agree that the construction of the 1948 Act is not endangered.
I agree with the Solicitor-General that failure to comply with the notice is not a criminal offence. The criminal offence is the offence under the Army Act of being absent without leave. I will not deal with desertion. I do not think that he has considered the words here, which are a great deal stronger against the man than the words in the Road Traffic Act. The words in this Bill are:
any such notice shall be deemed to have been duly served upon the person to whom it was directed".
Those words create an estoppel. When Parliament says that something shall be deemed to be so, no evidence is admissible in any court of law to show to the contrary. If Parliament says that a white horse shall be deemed to be black, the evidence of anyone who says in court, "I looked at the horse. It is white" will be ruled inadmissible since he is not allowed to say that it is any colour other than that which Parliament has decreed it shall be deemed. The effect simply is that for the purposes of the law and for the purposes of the rules of evidence any proceeding brought is brought on the assumption that the man has been duly served.
8.0 p.m.
Suppose that a man before a court-martial is prosecuted for being absent without leave, and that he wishes to say that he was not served. He is not allowed to say that, because the law says that he was duly served. Since he cannot say, "I was not served" and cannot challenge the service, then, on the assumption that he was served, he has no defence to being absent without leave. He has not had the leave, he is absent and he is not allowed to say that


he has not had the summons because the law says that he is deemed to have been duly served.
This seems to me to raise a very real danger. What we are creating is not an offence, but a rule of evidence, and that rule of evidence is the assumption of due service. But even if I am wrong—I do not think that I am—and it is necessary to show, apart from the service which is deemed, an element of culpability in the absence without leave, that element of culpability can almost certainly be shared among, I should think, about 80 per cent. of the men affected by Clause 2.
The idea is that these men should remain in a supplementary reserve and that track should be kept of them. Does the Under-Secretary of State really think that he knows where are even 20 per cent:. of the Clause 2 men? Are they really culpable because they take a holiday abroad, because they change their address, because they move from their district, or because they do not inform the War Office that they propose to go to Ireland? We know that all these men are doing this.
This obligation on men to keep the authorities informed of their where-abouts is a dead letter. It was conceived at one time that that should be the structure of the Army. It was not the structure of the Army. In effect, even on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assumption that, over and above this artificial deeming that notice has been served it is necessary to show culpability, that culpability does exist in the vast majority of cases, because there is the obligation there, although it is an obligation which, in effect, has lapsed, which no one has attempted to enforce and which has simply been dropped. Unless there is this form of protection, we create a real danger of finding people who are innocent guilty of offences under military law.
I therefore think that we must press this Amendment to a Division unless the Solicitor-General says that he will have second thoughts about it or that he will accept it. He may well do that now that he has been reassured that he will not endanger all the other people under the 1948 Act.

The Solicitor-General: A number of new points have been raised in the debate and it would be discourteous if I did not endeavour to try to deal with them.
The most serious point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). If he were right, it would strike at all the protection given to any person charged with absence without leave. My firm conviction is that he is not right. What the word "deemed" means here is that in the eyes of the law a man has been duly served and that the notice has been made sufficiently proximate to him to attract the provisions of subsection (2) and to make him subject to military law. If he is charged with absence without leave, it will not prevent his saying, not that he was not served—because it is true, as the hon. and learned Member said, that there is a statutory presumption, a statutory fiction—but that he did not get the letter. That is different, and obviously "duly served" includes both personal service which reaches him and, under subsection (I, b), sending notice by registered post addressed to his last known address which, because it is in contrast to paragraph (a) may not reach him.
In view of what has been said, I will certainly reconsider the matter with my advisers. But I have no doubt that, as at present advised, it would be open to a man charged with absence without leave to say, "I never received the letter. That was no fault of mine and, therefore, I am not guilty of the requisite culpability of mind to make me guilty of absence without leave".
I am reinforced in that view, since I find the same formula in the National Service Act, 1948. It was first introduced in the 1947 Act. In the consolidating 1948 Act, it appears as the proviso to Section 33, and states:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in section twenty-six of the Interpretation Act, 1889, where an enlistment notice or a training notice has been served on any person by post, service on him shall not be deemed to have been duly effected unless it is proved either that he received the notice or that it was sent by registered post addressed to him at his last known address.
Hundreds of charges of absence without leave must have been brought under Section 33, which should be read with Section 9.
I read to the Committee the terms of the Manual of Military Law which make it plain that the defence of non-default of any sort on the part of an accused man is always thought to be available.

Mr. Paget: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, it is the due service which is deemed that puts a man into the Army and makes his present obligatory. It is not the receipt of the letter. Therefore, when due service has happened, if he is absent, he is absent without leave.

The Solicitor-General: One can be absent from one's unit without leave without being guilty of the offence of "absence without leave" under Section 38 of the Army Act. If the hon. and learned Member looks at Section 145 (1, a) of the Army Act, I think that he will see that that is true beyond doubt.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) doubted my advice to the Committee that there might be danger of the Amendment having unfortunate repercussions on other provisions on the Statute Book. I may sound confident when I give advice to the Committee—indeed, it is my duty to do so—but I am always willing to learn, particularly from practising lawyers like hon. Members opposite.
The provision which I had in mind appears on page 35 of the latest edition of Maxwell, which one of my hon. Friends has been kind enough to get. The section states:
Earlier Act explained by later. Not only may the later Act be construed by the light of the earlier, but it sometimes furnishes a legislative interpretation of the earlier if it is in pari materia and the provisions of the earlier Act are ambiguous.

Mr. Paget: Surely it is always in the power of Parliament to pass an Act interpreting the previous one.

The Solicitor-General: That is not what the passage is directed to. I hope that I did not put it very high, but there is a danger—and it would be quite wrong when one has a completely unnecessary Amendment to disregard the fact—not only that the Amendment is unnecessary, but that it may have adverse repercussions.

Mr. Morris: While one realises the authority of the interpretation that the Solicitor-General is putting forward.

surely the courts would be loath to put such an interpretation on a penal statute.

The Solicitor-General: I do not dissent from that as a general proposition. In the end, however—penal statute, fiscal statute or whatever it is—the courts must try to interpret it to give effect to the intention of Parliament.
I come, finally, to the serious attack made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who took on my main point that it is not true that this provision is unnecessary. He drew attention, quite rightly, to a recent decision of the divisional court concerning the Road Traffic Act and notice of intended prosecution having to be served either personally or by registered post within a certain period. It was held that the fact that the registered letter was taken in by someone in the household who was authorised to receive correspondence was sufficient compliance.
I have that case in mind, but I do not consider it relevant to this debate, for two reasons. One of them, if my recollection serves me that the divisional count came to that conclusion, was that the court said that there is an alternative method of service on the owner of the vehicle; and that indicated that personal service, bringing the matter to the man's knowledge, is not strictly necessary.
The more serious reason, however, why I cannot accept that argument is that I have no doubt that the provisions of the Amendment would override any possibility of following that case in relation to the sort of proceedings which we have in mind under the Bill. The Amendment states:
in any proceedings that may be instituted against such person for failure to comply with such notice it shall be a defence if he prove both that he did not receive the notice and that he did not know that any notice had been sent out addressed to him.
That would clearly cover the case of a man who did not receive the notice because it had been taken in even by somebody whom he had authorised to receive it.
I come back to the point at which I left the Committee the first time I spoke on the Amendment. This is an unnecessary provision. It would enable—no


hon. Member has answered this—a man to escape who deliberately evades service. That is not according to the intention of the Committee. Therefore, in spite of all I have heard, and promising to re-examine with my advisers the arguments adduced in the debate, I can

only again advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 185.

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[8.15 p.m


Ainsley, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mitchison, G. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.


Baird, John
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Morris, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon, F. J.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moyle, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Padley, W. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Holman, Percy
Paget, R. T.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Holt, Arthur
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.


Boyden, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Pavitt, Laurence


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Randall, Harry


Cliffe, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Collick, Percy
Jeger, George
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Corbet, Mrs Freda
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Ross, William


Crosland, Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)



Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Deer, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Skeffington, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, Julian


Diamond, John
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, Norman
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lipton, Marcus
Steele, Thomas


Evans, Albert
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Fitch, Alan
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Eric
McCann, John
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacColl, James
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McInnes, James
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wainwright, Edwin


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Warbey, William


Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mapp, Charles
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mellish, R. J.



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Cronin


Hannan, William
Milne, Edward





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H. P. G.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Allason, James
Chataway, Christopher
Gammans, Lady


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gardner, Edward


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gibson-Watt, David


Barlow, Sir John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gilmour, Sir John


Barter, John
Cleaver, Leonard
Glover, Sir Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Cole, Norman
Goodhart, Philip


Bell, Ronald
Collard, Richard
Goodhew, Victor


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cooper, A. E.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Berkeley, Humphry
Corfield, F. V.
Green, Alan


Biffen, John
Costain, A. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Gurden, Harold


Bingham, R. M.
Curran, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bishop, F. P.
Dance, James
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Deedes, W. F.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bossom, Clive
Digby, Simon wingfield
Hastings, Stephen


Bourne-Arton, A.
Drayton, G. B.
Hay, John


Box, Donald
du Cann, Edward
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duncan, Sir James
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hirst, Geoffrey


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fell, Anthony
Hobson, John


Bullard, Denys
Finlay, Graeme
Hocking, Philip N.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fisher, Nigel
Holland, Philip




Hughes-Young, Michael
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Stodart, J. A.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tapsell, Peter


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Taylor, Frank (M'cn'st'r, Moss Side)


James, David
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peel, John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pitman, Sir James
Turner, Colin


Kershaw, Anthony
Pitt, Miss Edith
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kirk, Peter
Pott, Percivall
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Leburn, Gilmour
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Vane, W. M. F.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Prior, J. M. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Longden, Gilbert
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walker, Peter


Loveys, Walter H.
Pym, Francis
Wall, Patrick


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ramsden, James
Ward, Dame Irene


MacArthur, Ian
Rawlinson, Peter
Webster, David


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Renton, David
Whitelaw, William


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marshall, Douglas
Roots, William
Wise, A. R.


Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Seymour, Leslie
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Sharples, Richard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Mawby, Ray
Shaw, M.
Woollam, John


Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Shepherd, William
Worsley, Marcus


Mills, Stratton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)



Morgan, William
Smithers, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Mr. Gordon Campbell and


Neave, Airey
Stevens, Geoffrey
Mr. McLaren.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I beg to move, in page 3, line 45, to leave out from the beginning to "enlisted" in line 11 on page 4 and to insert:
(2) Where any person has been recalled or called out by such a notice as aforesaid, then, at all times during the period beginning with the date and time specified in the notice and ending with the completion of his service by virtue of that notice, he shall be liable to serve in any place, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and the Army Act, 1955, shall apply to him as if he were an officer holding a land forces commission, warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or soldier, as the case may be, of the regular forces, and not a member of the territorial army, the army reserve or a reserve of officers, as the case may be, but, in the case of a person who does not for the time being hold a commission, subject to the same exceptions as in the case of a person.

The Chairman: It is permissible to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 4, line 6, at the end to insert:
Provided that no person called out under subsection (1) of section three of this Act shall be regarded as a member of the Territorial Army for the purposes of section two hundred and eleven of the Army Act, 1955.
but the vote will only be taken, if required, on the first Amendment.

Mr. Ramsden: The Amendment represents a redrafting of subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause in their original form

and I hope that the Committee will find that it is an improvement. Incidentally, it meets the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in his Amendment in page 4, line 6. I share the regret expressed by others that the hon. Member has not been able to be here today to take part in our debates and to discuss this second Amendment which has been joined to the first for the purpose of discussion.
The first four lines of the Amendment, down to "elsewhere", simply have the effect of making it clear that members of the Territorial Army who are called under Clauses 2 or 3 may be sent overseas. As the Committee will know, officers and men of the Territorial Army are liable under the Auxiliary Forces Act for service outside the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands only on embodiment.
Hon. Members may wonder how it was ever thought that under this Bill, without the circumstances attending embodiment, we should have been able to send them overseas. The answer is that the Bill provides for those serving under it to do "Army service", as it is termed, and it might have been held that this term covered liability for service both at home and overseas. We


thought it advisable, however, to provide specifically for service overseas by those affected, and this is what the first part of the Amendment does.
The second part of the Amendment represents our reflections on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley. It makes it clear, as he wanted to do, that Section 211 of the Army Act does not apply to men called up under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. Section 211 says that the Army Act does not apply in certain minor instances to members of the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve when embodied or called out.
If the Section were applied to men recalled under Clause 2, and they are all members of the Territorial Army or the Army Emergency Reserve, or if it were applied to members of the Territorial Army Reserve when called out under Clause 3, they would be treated differently for Army Act purposes from the men retained under Clause 1, and, incidentally, differently in minor respects from each other.
The hon. Member for Dudley was concerned that all men doing Army service under the Bill should be treated alike as far as the Army Act is concerned. At one stage, I was prepared to argue with him that this was what Clause 4 (2) in its original form did, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is often a wise thing to do on technical matters connected with Army law, and this is what the Amendment does.
I have dealt with the position of the Territorial Army serving overseas and with the non-application of Section 211 to the remainder.

It being half-past Eight o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at that hour, including the Question on the Amendment, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(DURATION OF ACT.)

This Act shall expire at the end of twelve months from the date of its coming into force unless continued by an Expiring Laws Continuance Act.—[Mr. Bellenger.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
After that holocaust of Clauses, with the Secretary of State to all intents and purposes getting his Bill in the last few minutes, without having to work for it; I hope that this new Clause will meet with his favourable consideration. I can assure him that it is moved with no Intention of restricting him unduly, because, after all, he now very nearly has his Bill through the Committee. But as I said yesterday, the Opposition are just as concerned as are the Government to provide the wherewithal for military forces that are considered necessary in the defence of this country's interests, and, of course, to meet our many commitments, particularly to N.A.T.O., which we have undertaken freely and of our own volition.
However, there is one point which I urge upon right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. Ever since the time of the New Model Army—which is going back to the seventeenth century—Parliament has always been jealous of any attempt by the Executive, or, in those days, by the Monarchy, to have regular forces in peace time. That is why up to 1955 we had the annual Army Act. That is the reason why the Secretary of State and all the other defence Departments have to come to the House once a year to present their Estimates and tell the House how many men they want and how much money.
There has been good reason for the suspicion of the House of Commons about the Executive having military forces at its command which it could use not always in circumstances that would meet with the approval of the House. I think recent history has shown that many of the revolutions that have taken place in other countries have been carried through only because military forces were at the command of the leaders. I do not attempt to say that in this democratic country the


Government of the day would ever use our Forces except to meet external dangers, but I do say—and here I must repeat, though briefly, something I said yesterday—that it is not unknown for Governments to use military forces for emergencies which they define as emergencies within our own territory.
Nor do I suggest for a moment that the Secretary of State, who is quite an inoffensive Minister, if I may call him that, for he is certainly unlike some of the Secretaries for War we have had in the past, will use the forces in any other way than the way in which they are meant to be used. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman told us both today and yesterday that they would be used only in that way. But my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) put his finger on the spot when he said that there is no definition of an emergency in the Bill. I agree that it would be difficult to put it in legal language, but nevertheless my right hon. Friend is right in saying that there is no explanation about what an emergency might be which would warrant the Secretary of State, without a proclamation, calling up something like, I think, 60,000 reservists.

Mr. Ede: That figure is in the Bill.

Mr. Bellenger: Then the figure is correct. The Secretary of State could call up 60,000 men without Proclamation. I do not believe that he will do that or envisages doing it even in the event of a grave military emergency such as might occur over Berlin. But we have been trying to probe his intentions about what he wants to do.
We have met with a certain amount of success. For instance, on Clause 3, he said that he had it in mind, without tying himself to a definite figure, to try to recruit 15,000 "Ever-readies". He followed this with the very pregnant remark that if he could get what he wanted in "Ever-readies" he might not need Clause 2. We know that in the course of time Clause 1 will disappear because the men will not be there. Clause 1 is to retain certain members of the Forces in view of the possible emergency and of the tension. But it has a time limit, whatever happens to the rest of the Bill.
Therefore, in a year's time, or thereabouts, Clause 1 will go into oblivion. If the Government keep their pledge to do away with conscription, there will not be the National Service men available on whom the Secretary of State can call under Clause 1. That is one of the arguments which I use in substantiating this new Clause, which is not a trivial one. The argument contains an essential principle, which I think the Secretary of State could willingly concede.
The right hon. Gentleman told us today that Parliament will have some control over reserve forces because of the financial control. Every year he must come to the House of Commons and present his Estimates, and we know to the last penny, subject to supplementary estimates, what the total cost will be and how many men are to be allocated to the Regular Army, the Territorial Army and the Reserves.
There are one or two other arguments. The first is the reason why we have the Bill at all. It is very unusual between Estimates to ask Parliament to provide for a maximum of 60,000 men who could be used for a purpose which only the Secretary of State for War needs to say is sufficient reason for their call-up. Of course, he would have to come to Parliament and say what he was doing, but he could do it without consulting Parliament, without a Proclamation. All he has to do is to come to Parliament after he has called them up and tell us that he has done so.

Mr. W. Yates: If news got out that he had used his power, Standing Order No. 9 would be brought into operation immediately, long before he came to Parliament to tell us.

Mr. Bellenger: That may be, but I do not think that the hon. Member will dissent when I say—indeed, it has already been said, and he himself hinted at it and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted it—that the Secretary of State can do more or less as he likes. It is he who says what is the tension which necessitates calling up these reserves. It is he who says that he will call them up, and Parliament will have hardly any control of the calling-up process.

Mr. Ede: He could call them up in the middle of a Recess. There is no requirement in the Bill that Parliament shall meet within a certain time to consider emergency regulations, or anything like that.

Mr. Bellenger: That is an extension of my argument. Parliament will have very little control over the calling up of these reserves, although it has always insisted on complete control from year to year and on having some power of restriction on the Secretary of State.
I do not want to give the Secretary of State such wide powers, although I recognise the reason for these reserves and I expressed my approval of the "Ever-readies" when we discussed Clause 3. That ought to be a very good reserve for the Regular Forces. But I do not agree with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is to present us with a blank cheque. When public money which cannot be put under a particular heading has to be spent, it is spent out of the Consolidated Fund, but when it comes to military matters the House of Commons should be very chary about giving the right hon. Gentleman powers which he can use almost at his pleasure and certainly at Parliamentary leisure, when the House of Commons is not meeting.
Even now the right hon. Gentleman seems not quite sure of the set-up of his own Army. I thought that when the Berlin trouble arose. I suppose that it would be wrong to say that the War Office panicked, but we might put it on the politicians, for it is not unknown for politicians to panic. I believe that, having given their pledge to do away with conscription and their recruiting not going as well as had been thought, the politicians suddenly realised that there would be this trough, this vacuum, between the passing out of the last National Service man and the time when the right hon. Gentleman got the numbers he required to make up his Regular Army to the strength required to meet commitments in the various parts of the world.
I shall be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman for how long he wants these powers. If the Bill is passed in its entirety, it could go on from year to year until Parliament decided to repeal it, subject to factors like the disappear

ance of Clause 1 because no man would be affected by it. Because I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have these wide powers, I have put forward the new Clause, so that the Bill would be continued for only twelve months from the date of its coming into force unless it were continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
8.45 p.m.
That should not cause the right hon. Gentleman too much trouble. Every hon. Member knows that when we discuss the Act we are very limited in what we can say, and if at the end of the year the right hon. Gentleman thought that he wanted to continue these provisions the short debate that would then occur should not cause him any apprehension. I cannot think that if he repeated what he has already told us today—the reason why he wants these men—Parliament would deny him those powers. He might say, "Why should I do that". We used to have an annual Army Bill. In 1955 the House decided it would keep that Act in being and only if we needed to amend it would we do so, as occasion arose. Why should not the same process be carried out with this Bill?"
The reason is that whereas the Army Act deals with the discipline of the Army, this Measure deals with a far more vital matter. It is concerned with providing reserve powers to call up a vast number of men and to dislocate their lives. The "Ever-readies" would go in with their eyes open and would he paid for the obligation they were undertaking. The same would apply to the Class "A" Reserve. The position of National Service men fulfilling their liability in the Territorial Army would not be quite the same. Those men are there not because they volunteered but because Parliament decided that they should be there, and they must obey the law, like everyone else.
During the Second Reading debate the right hon. Gentleman explained, as one of the reasons why he wanted the Bill, that the War Office was
engaged in a detailed examination of the effectiveness of our present system of reserves against the background of the requirements of today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th November. 1961; Vol. 649, c. 51.]
He went on to say that that would take some time. When it had been completed


he would presumably explain to the House what his ideas were about the reserves for the Regular Army, just as he explains the position every year in the Army Estimates debate.
I do not know how long that examination will take. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. The Regular Army may be all right; I think that it will be. Once the National Service men are out of it he will have a very good Army, with the comparatively long terms of engagement on which men are enlisting today, and therefore he will get back to the situation which prevailed before the war and has never prevailed during and since the war. The War Office must make up its mind what will be the scope of the Regular and the Reserve Forces. It would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman then explained to the House, as he has explained to us today, very carefully and technically, in terms which the House could understand, the scope of the Regular Forces that he wants and the scope of the Reserve Forces to back them up.
That is why I want the Bill to come up for renewal each year. I do not want him to go away next week, when the Bill has passed its Report and Third Reading stages, and say, "That is through at last; now we can sit back and take a breather." I want him to be constantly on his toes; indeed, he will have to be if what he says about the cold war is right. He must be ready for all tricks and turns. In that case, why should not he present to the House a properly balanced force and not, as will be the case under the Bill, a makeshift force? The forces provided by Clauses 1 and 2 will certainly be makeshift, although those under Clause 3, the "Ever-readies", may not be so bad. I am inclined to think that if the right hon. Gentleman makes a success of that, as I believe he will, he will get back to something like the old volunteer system which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields knew so many years ago, at the beginning of the century.

Mr. Ede: At the end of the last century.

Mr. Bellenger: Well, at the end of the last century. At any rate, it was quite a long time ago.
The right hon. Gentleman must know that the situation of the Regular Army in 1914, with its reserves, provided us with a very good Army, and possibly we have not been able to have such an Army since. Here is a chance for the right hon. Gentleman so to recast his plans that in a year's time he may be able, if not to tell us completely what are his plans, to give us a hint of how his mind is working.
Yesterday and today we have been given no idea from the right hon. Gentleman about what he is working for. We have been given a piece of the jigsaw puzzle, but not the complete puzzle. I think that it is the right of Parliament to insist on that, in view of what I have said about our jealousy about giving unlimited power to the Government or the Executive. We are verging on that in this case. I do not say that the power is unlimited, but the right hon. Gentleman is being given vast power to do things which may not coincide with opinion on both sides of the House.
May I mention, briefly, one matter which is now past history, namely, Suez. There may be other expeditions of that nature. The right hon. Gentleman, or the Service Ministers, could not have engaged in that had they not had the Regular forces. At any rate, a section of opinion in the House and in the country was concerned about the use of those forces. Other occasions may occur when the right hon. Gentleman may think that he should use his forces for escapades of that kind. What control has Parliament over him, if he can call up a large number of men by Proclamation and use them, not necessarily for something like Suez, but to supplement the Regular forces which may have been drawn off to different parts of the world to engage in such undertakings.

Mr. Profumo: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect, whether he likes it or not, that the Government of the day did call up the Reserves at the time of Suez.

Mr. Bellenger: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am going too far in my imaginings, let him say so when he replies. I am putting before the Committee thoughts which occurred to me and which may be a little extravagant. But I have been in the


position which the right hon. Gentleman now occupies and, although times were different then, I know that our Regular forces can sometimes be diverted into channels in a way in which, if the House knew all the truth, it would not agree. The "Ever-readies" and the other sorts of reserves could be "infiltrated"—if I may use the word—into positions occupied by the Regular forces and the Regular forces used elsewhere.
Be that as it may, I am only trying to understand the possibilities which may occur, and which have occurred in the past. I do not know whether the Committee would think the power for which I am asking is too much. But, considering what the right hon. Gentleman has been given yesterday and today, I put it to him that it is not too much to ask that if he wishes to continue this, he should do so by yearly legislation, so that he may "come clean" to the House of Commons and tell us how he is getting on, and how many more or how fewer of these men he requires.
The right hon. Gentleman will set up a committee—I think it a well-manned committee, although there was some criticism yesterday—to deal with hardship compassionate cases. No doubt many hon. Members will have cases to present to the Secretary of State. Let us hope, therefore, that with the assistance of his committee the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy those hon. Members. But he may not be able to do so, and hon. Members may take grave objection to the way in which he is manipulating or administering compassionate and hardship cases.
The House has been lenient so far in this matter, because we have had what appeared to be good assurances from the right hon. Gentleman that he would give every satisfaction to every individual whom he thought was undergoing hardship.

Mr. Profumo: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps I overstressed the point. It is true that the aggrieved soldier has to satisfy his commanding officer, but the commanding officers vary. If I understood the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, he explained that when a commanding

officer turns down an application of a soldier for deferment or to be excused service of one kind or another, that soldier's plea will get to him to decide.

Mr. Profumo: indicated assent.

Mr. Bellenger: I am very glad that he assents, because I know that there are some commanding officers who are rather impatient with complaints or grievances which they think trivial and which they dismiss because either they have not the time to consider them fully or they do not know the facts.

Mr. Profumo: I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have given an undertaking and have given instructions that no commanding officer may withhold a request from a soldier provided that request is substantiated by evidence. What I do not feel able to give, and have not yet given, is an undertaking that I shall give satisfaction in every case, but I will give consideration to every case.

Mr. Bellenger: I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman cannot always give satisfaction. No Minister can do that; that is why they do not last for too long. I welcome his assurance because a soldier is not always a skilled person in putting his own complaint. I had considerable experience during the war when I was writing for a popular journal of having thousands of complaints from soldiers and others. When I sifted them I found that quite a lot of them had suffered injustice because they had not been treated properly by commanding officers in the first place.
We ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to an early limitation on these powers because we want to see that his assurances, which so far seem satisfactory, will work in practice as he says they will. That is another reason for asking him to agree to some limitation. The right hon. Gentleman said today, in answer to a question of mine, that he was aiming at something like 15,000 "Ever-readies". If he could get the number he wanted he might be able to dispense with Clause 2, that is the ex-Service men with three-and-a-half years liability. They would not be needed for call-up and Clause 1 would have disappeared, because there would be no more National Service men in the Army.


Then two of the main Clauses of the Bill would have gone. When they have gone, why should the Measure be kept in existence?
In a year or two years' time, why should the right hon. Gentleman not say to the House, "I have got my Regular forces and my reserve forces"—I hope he will explain how he will balance them—"I do not need this Measure any more." This is a temporary Measure, the Minister said. How "temporary" is it to be or how "permanent" is it to be? I suggest that he should agree to this new Clause, which is not asking too much of him.
9.0 p.m.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. The whole purpose of this Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman has explained it, is to meet that tension Which he says builds up from time to time or continues in the form of the cold war. If he is right, he will need these different reserves, but he will also need Parliament's support in having them. I do not think Parliament will be ungenerous in giving him what he wants, but let us suppose that, by any chance, the Government or the Foreign Secretary can lower the tension, or that the Prime Minister can get an agreement which will, at any rate, put that tension into cold storage for some years.
It is not impossible. When one considers the inter-war years, one remembers that there was rising tension after the First World War, and that by a series of pacts, agreements and treaties there seemed to be a period when there was peace. Indeed, after the First World War, the War Office based its plans on the assumption that there would be no major war in ten years. It may very well be that the right hon. Gentleman is right in what he said about tension, for tension can decrease as well as increase. I quite agree that we must not be too optimistic about that, but it might be. Then, does the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will still want this Bill? If he does say that, he is denying the whole basis on which he has built up the arguments advanced on this Bill.
I pay this tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. He has been criticised, and rightly so, and, after all, he has been long

enough in the House to know that the Secretary of State for War always has to come in for criticism. The Army always has criticism, and not without reason. We have only to take the history of the British Army to know that there have been very good reasons on occasions for criticising the chief of the Army—the Secretary of State for War.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to do his best to mitigate the hardships which, as he said, will follow from the operation of the Bill. I should also like to thank him for the way he has tried to meet the various points, especially the technical points, of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), which I hope ne has always understood, which, perhaps, from time to time, have been very technical, perhaps too technical for some of us, but which he has done his best to meet.
I am asking him now, unless there is any vital reason for having these unlimited powers, because that is what it means if we pass this Bill without any limit on its duration, to be reasonable and accept the Amendment. He has not accepted any of the Amendments, although he has done his best to sympathise with us and say how much he would like to help us. We are used to that in this House, but here is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman, after listening to what I have had to say, to give us this new Clause, which, I suggest to him will not cause him any undue hardship or undue disability, or any other unwarranted restriction on the immense powers which he is asking the Committee to grant him this evening.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I have not previously intervened in the debates on the Bill, but I wish to support the new Clause so fully and cogently moved and argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger).
The point raised in this proposed Clause is whether the Bill should be of indefinite duration, or whether its operation should be limited to expire in twelve months' time, and then be subject to annual review under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
As my right hon. Friend said, this involves a serious constitutional issue. Parliament and the country have always been very jealous indeed about the


powers which they give the Executive with regard to the Armed Forces of the Crown. This feeling of jealousy and concern had its origin much earlier than the seventeenth century. It is well grounded. It is based on the conviction that the Executive of the day ought not to have powers over the Armed Forces which are not fully justified and subject to the most minute and critical control by Parliament.
Parliamentary control does not consist merely of financial control. Obviously, there are matters of controlling Government expenditure. Estimates have to be voted. Supplementary Estimates have to be introduced if the annual Votes are exceeded. There has to be a great deal of financial control over Government expenditure, including expenditure on the Armed Forces.
The reason why a special measure of Parliamentary control is required over the Armed Forces is that it affects not merely the purse of the taxpayer, but individual freedom and liberty. The feeling is well grounded that people ought not to be called up to serve in the Armed Forces unless there is overriding necessity. As the Secretary of State knows, we object to the Bill. We think that it is a bad, an unfair, and an unnecessary Bill. We think that the whole of the Minister's policy with regard to the Army is ill-conceived.
I will not go into the technical grounds on which the Minister has been criticised in these debates, but he is aware of the volume of criticism which is directed against his policy. No doubt he will get the Bill. He will convince the majority of hon. Members that the provisions contained in it are necessary. Be it so. There will remain the question as to the duration for which the Crown should have this power.
As my right hon. Friend said, the whole case for the Bill is that it is required as a temporary expedient to meet a particular emergency. It is not even put forward by the Government as something which is required as a permanent reform of our military law. Its only justification and raison d'être is that there is at this time an emergency in the international situation and in the quality and quantity of our Armed Forces which makes this Measure,

curious, unusual, difficult, and controversial as many of its provisions are, necessary to meet a limited, temporary, transient emergency. That is the ground upon which it is put forward.
Therefore, it seems to me to follow as a consequence of the Secretary of State's own logic that he should bow to the traditions of this country with regard to the Army Acts and curtail the duration of the Measure. We are not asking very much. We are not asking the Committee to agree to anything which is sensational or which will curtail the Government's powers. We suggest that the traditions of Parliamentary life and understanding should be recognised. The Bill should operate for twelve months only, with all its inconvenience, including the fact that these 60,000 reservists can be called up without Proclamation when Parliament is in Recess, when there is no opportunity of criticising the Government, when there is no possibility of having an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 9, and when there is no opportunity that the machinery of a Proclamation would provide for dealing with such a situation.
In an intervention a few minutes ago the Secretary of State said that reservists were called up at the time of Suez. Is he aware that, on that occasion, there was a Proclamation? If the Bill is passed there will be no need for a Proclamation. What would happen in the case of another Suez'? That is one of the salient differences which this Bill introduces.
The Committee has already agreed—under the Guillotine—to the Clauses conferring these vast powers on the Government and the Opposition are suggesting that those powers should be renewed in a year's time. It is a recognised feature of our democratic machinery that we have the Expiring Laws Continuance Act to enable Acts that are contentious, dangerous or of a temporary nature to be renewed once a year so that all those Acts which would otherwise expire can be put in a Schedule and go through their Second Reading stages, often without debate.
A great many Bills in the Schedule provoke no controversy when they come up for renewal but, if they do, there is an opportunity for the House to see if


they should be renewed for another year and, which is equally important, to enable hon. Members to examine the administrative methods by which a particular Act coming up for renewal has been operated.
The Aliens Measure—one of far-reaching importance affecting many thousands of people—is an example of an Act which is subject to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. It is not a permanent feature of our legislation—although it is no less important in its affect on the lives of people than will be this Bill. This is an Army Bill and our tradition for hundreds of years has been that such Measures should be looked at annually.

Mr. Profumo: Always?

Mr. Fletcher: Until 1955, for hundreds of years, Army Acts required annual renewal. We put them on a quasi-permanent basis for various reasons because they affected discipline and there was no need to review them year by year. This Bill, however, is analogous to the old Army Bills which came up for renewal annually, a practice which, as I have said, continued for centuries.
As has been pointed out, there is great concern about how the Bill will be administered, especially with regard to cases of hardship, call-up and all the technical problems to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw referred. The Minister intervened a short while ago to say that he could give certain assurances, but he qualified his remarks by saying that he could not give satisfaction. We want an opportunity, annually, to see how these cases of hardship, call-up, and so on, have been dealt with, for that is the right of Parliament and of the Opposition. It is something which should not be denied us. When Bills of this kind are introduced, which affect human beings—

Mr. Profumo: The National Service Act does not have to be renewed each year, but every hon. Member has the right to ask the Secretary of State for War to see that he is looking after men properly.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I agree that hon. Members have the right to put questions, but

that is not the same thing. We want to see how the Bill will operate. Apart from that, my hon. Friends want an opportunity of reviewing annually whether the circumstances of the day warrant these extraordinary powers being renewed for a further year.
My last, but not my least important, point is that there is a compelling reason why the duration of this Bill, certainly, and I would say, of nearly every Bill which the Government introduce from now on, should be criticised. That overriding reason is that the Government are embarking on Common Market negotiations which may or may not materialise this year—although in some quarters it is said that they will. If that proves true then, with all the ramifications of the Treaty of Rome coming into operation, no hon. Member conceals from himself, although members of the Government may try to conceal it from the country, that there will follow constitutional changes of a very great order.
I am not now considering the merits of the Common Market—that would be irrelevant, and out of order—but it is obvious from what has been said, and from the documents that have been published, that if we become bound by the Treaty of Rome the consequences not only in our economic and commercial life, but in our social and fiscal legislation and, inevitably, in our military legislation, will be profound, incalculable and far-reaching.
That event would also involve questions of sovereignty, and so forth, not less than the liberty of the subject and the rights of the individual. I am not speculating as to what they might be, but no one can really doubt how far-reaching would be the consequences of that act which, rightly or wrongly—and I am not arguing that question—is being contemplated by the Government.
That such a vastly important change is impending, and may take place, is an additional reason why we should think very carefully before placing, for an indefinite period, new and controversial legislation on the Statute Book. It may be all right to have it there for twelve months, but I would say of almost any Bill that is to be brought forward, and of this one, above all, that the Common Market possibility is an additional


reason for recommending the Committee to say, "There are good reasons for passing the Bill this year, but we should limit its duration so that in a year's time, whether or not we are in the Common Market, or are still on its fringe, and, whether we are more aware of the vast changes it will produce, we should have another opportunity of considering whether these vast powers for which the Government are asking should be renewed."
Therefore, I would hope that the Minister, having heard the opinions expressed here, would recognise the rights of Parliament and content himself with having the Bill for twelve months; and with having the right to ask Parliament to renew it annually under an Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

Mr. W. Yates: This is a very important and fundamental new Clause. Almost every hon. Member must worry about whether we should allow the Executive to take these powers, but I think that Parliament is in a dilemma. In the cold war, we want the Executive to be able to move quickly and efficiently, and without having Proclamations and putting the country in a state of probably unnecessary alarm. Therefore, because of the Berlin crisis earlier last year, the Government have, I think rightly, decided that from time to time they need, because of the cold war, the power to call up reserves and have them immediately available.
If we want the Executive and the Minister to be efficient and to do the job for the security of the country, how can we have Clauses like this, to the their hands? I have heard the argument that if this power was used during a Recess, Parliament would have no chance to correct the Executive's action, or that of the Secretary of State for War who signs a document on any particular day. In fact, if we look back to 1956, we realise that the Executive can act and take decisions without consulting Parliament.
I am very sceptical about whether or not I should support the new Clause. But I will say this for the Minister. He already has his officials and a committee working on the whole problem of our Reserve Forces and how they are to be

co-ordinated and controlled. If he would give a quite simple undertaking that eventually he intends to bring another Bill before the House which places all our Reserve Forces in proper order to face the emergencies of the cold war, I would be inclined at present not to accept the Clause, but to give him these powers. But that is entirely dependent on the condition or understanding that he will assure the House that the method of calling up our reserves and using our reserves in time of emergency is being considered.
We have a difficult task as Members because not only have we to protect the rights of our constituents and guard against the Executive doing something which we cannot accept as a House, but we also demand that the Executive be swift, bold and efficient. Therefore, on reflection, I would be prepared to vote against this new Clause if the Minister would give a categorical undertaking that the whole of our Reserve Forces and the method of call-up is being considered.

Mr. Ede: I am not prepared to accept the point of view of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates). If this Bill is passed, and is ever operated, to call up 60,000 men will produce a state of excitement in this country and abroad that ought not to be created without the prior or immediate consent of the House. The liberties of this country depend upon Ministers answering at the Dispatch Box for all their actions, particularly Ministers who are advised by the military. The fundamental basis on which British democracy works is that the civilian Minister is in control and responsible to this House, and it is the individual responsibility of every man who values English tradition to see that it is not eroded in any way.
I cannot accept the proposition that we can give the Minister this Bill if he undertakes to bring in another. What will be the basis of the new Bill? "In March or some early month of 1962", it will be said, "we acquired these powers, and on them we propose to build." It will be assumed that this Bill represents sound policy at the moment, on which, in the easy way in which public panic can be created, further measures ought to be brought in and


new and added powers given to the Minister.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin said that the Departments ought to be swift, bold and resolute. I almost expected him to add, "It is well known that I believe that in every action they have taken, particularly overseas, those have been their distinguishing characteristics."

Mr. W. Yates: I do not want to be contentious with the right hon. Gentleman, but I should have thought that the action of Her Majesty's Government in Kuwait last year was a perfect example of what we should expect the Executive to do to protect our interests.

Mr. Ede: That was an easy one where the other side did not turn up.

Mr. Yates: But one would expect any Executive to take action in advance and not be found out afterwards.

Mr. Ede: I do not think that the example the hon. Gentleman chose was one which proved any case at all.

Mr. Yates: A very good example.

Mr. Ede: Because the other side did not turn up, we do not know what the strength of our bowlers is. I can think of 1956.

Mr. Yates: Never mind.

Mr. Ede: "Never mind", says the hon. Gentleman now.
We do not know the total number of men whose lives will be affected by the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) assumes that in a short time Clause 2 will be unnecessary. [Interruption.] I try to accept what my right hon. Friend says. I have a congenital reluctance to believe anything said on the other side of the Committee. I suggest that the new Clause is amply justified merely by the existence of Clause 2. One of the things which happens occasionally on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is that an Act is proposed for continuation except for certain sections of it, and it is continued in that form.
It will be very necessary, when various parts of this Bill become no longer applicable in the circumstances then existing, that those parts should be re

pealed. The annual review gives the Secretary of State a chance of doing that. Ministers always face difficulty—my right hon. Friend knows this—in getting a Bill into the Government programme, and a Bill to amend this Bill after it has been passed will encounter that difficulty. On the other hand, if it is included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, any necessary amendment can be made, and in that way we can rest assured that the Government cannot get on the barrack square more men than the House is willing to see them have.
9.30 p.m.
One of the problems confronting me in regard to this Bill is this. I take the position of men under Clause 1. They are in the Army. They will be told that their service is to be extended. They cannot protest. They are there. The Army has the bodies. What is more, it has the swords. Prior to the introduction of this Bill, they had every right to assume that at a date now rapidly approaching they would be able to return to their homes. Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell us that about 2,000 men were eligible under the law as it stands to leave the Army on 2nd or 4th April, or a date like that? [Interruption.] There were to be two groups. Whether the figure is 2,000 or 2,500, it does not affect the principle.
Those men will be told that Parliament has decided that they are to stay in the Army for a further six months. They may feel that they have a grievance, that they have been treated very unjustly and that they would like to show their protest in some way. I hope that they will not do that because I am an old soldier and I do not like to see troops unnecessarily getting themselves into trouble. But let us assume that some men are due to come out of the Army on 2nd April and that on the morning of 2nd April, instead of parading in accordance with the orders which have been issued, they do not appear. What will happen? They have refused to obey an order. If they go very much further, they may even be accused of mutiny.
It is very serious that this could happen in a free country, and I hope that some apology and explanation will be tendered to the troops when orders


are issued informing them of the change in their position that this Bill will create when it becomes an Act of Parliament. They have been selected, merely because the Army has the bodies, as the people on whom the first and worst effects of this Bill shall fall.
It is a bad thing when soldiers are disgruntled. I recollect my commanding officer saying to me one morning, "What is the spirit of the troops this morning?" I said, "They are grousing like hell." He said, "Do not you know that the bigger the grouser the better the soldier?" "Then", I said, "we have the best lot since the Battle of Hastings". Disgruntled soldiers, when the feeling has some justification, are not easy people to deal with, and their spirit is apt to be infectious. Therefore, let us be quite clear that what we are doing is very serious.
We have had no real indication of what these men will do when they are retained or called up. The worst problem of all is the regiment or company which feels that there is no justification for it being in the Army. I do not accept what has been said during discussions on this Bill that numerous young men have said that they have done nothing worth while in the Army and that their service in it has been a waste of time. I do not think that that has been as fully justified as the volume and heat of some of the complaints would suggest. Troops who feel that they are not being used get into a frame of mind that is not good for morale. We ought to have an assurance that men will not be unnecessarily called up when within seven days of their reporting to the depot or barracks it is obvious that there is no military duty for them.
I hope the Secretary of State will realise that I am anxious to see a good Army, well disciplined and of fine morale, which believes that it is doing an essential job. If the Secretary of State can get that, he will not have some of the disciplinary troubles that happen when the Army gets into the frame of mind which I have described.
I was reading the history of the end of the great civil war and the plight of the tribunal that was set up to try the King was being discussed. One of the descriptions of the scene was as follows.

There sat in the shadows a man whose word would determine what the verdict would be, for he was the idol of 55,000 unconquered and unconquerable men. Let us realise that an Army too large for its job is always a menace to civil order. That is why, since the days of the New Model Army, which had many things to commend it, the House of Commons has always been jealous of allowing unnecessary armed force to be at the disposal of the Government.
I did not hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw the other evening, but I was responsible for keeping the wheels moving and the ships being turned round in the Port of London. We did not use the troops as strike breakers. We tried to preserve those two essential parts of the life of the community. In the London Docks, it is almost amusing to see the troops trying to unload ships. Some men from my old regiment, the East Surreys, were there, and I went down to see them. When I arrived a sergeant was having a dispute with a striker, who said, "You are using that crane so inefficiently that when I come back here next week I shall not be able to use it."
On the whole, there was the best of feeling between the troops and the strikers in London, and as far as I know no military trouble was caused in any way. When the Home Secretary approached the Secretary of State for War in those days, the suggestion that troops should be diverted from their ordinary training to do the kind of things I have just mentioned was not warmly received. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw will agree that that is putting it mildly.
I do not want so large a military force to be available that the Army will welcome the chance of having something on which to put the troops to work. I know one by-pass road in Surrey which was built by Canadians. The authorities of the Canadian Army asked the highway authority to build that highway and to use their engineers to do it.
When we are dealing with this problem we should realise that over the centuries there have been plenty of warnings in this country and elsewhere against getting people under military orders for whom there is no real necessity. I know that the Secretary of State


will say that he would never do anything like that, and I accept that statement before it is made, but if he has this Bill on the Statute Book with no time limit on it we must take very long-term views of the situation which he would be creating.
I sympathise very much with the men whose domestic and professional lives will be diverted in some way by the Bill. The new Clause will enable them to feel, among other things, that this interruption of their careers will not be unnecessarily prolonged if Parliament has to have an annual look at the Act. I am certain that the aliens law is better administered in this country because there is an annual review than it would be if in certain circumstances it was made part of the statute law of the land.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin, who apparently knows all the Government's secrets, has told us all about what the Minister will do in getting the Bill implemented. The Minister thinks that one year is too short. It would mean one year from the passing of the Bill and he would have to name it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill just before Christmas this year. If the right hon. Gentleman intimated that he could accept the new Clause, if it were framed in a form that stated we would give him this power until the autumn of 1963, when the earlier people would be out of the Army, and that after that he would propose to the House an annual review in the form suggested in the new Clause, that ought to satisfy him and, I hope, would satisfy my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can say that, I shall feel obliged to vote with my right hon. Friend, for the reasons I have given.
9.45 p.m.
I love the British Army, and so does my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. I served in it as a young man for four years in the Volunteers, as I told the Committee last night. I had joined a body called the National Reserve just before the First World War, and when war was declared I redeemed the pledge I had given and served until about February, 1919. I enjoyed the comradeship of the Army. I know that if a man is willing to accept other men

in a spirit of equality and comradeship, the companionship of the Army can be very good for all the people who are in it.
It is not because I have any fear of the British Army—at least, of the rank and file—but when the military advisers of the War Office hear that there are 100,000 men or so whose bodies can be obtained, I fear the pressure that they may put on the Secretary of State and that this may result in a great deal of unnecessary disturbance of civil life. I ask the Secretary of State to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw in the spirit that, while we want to ensure that there shall be an efficient Army, according to British standards, there shall also be no men unnecessarily taken away from civilian occupations, because we have as big a battle to fight in the civil and industrial fields as we have in the military field. We cannot escape from that battle, and where men are best employed in civil and industrial life they should be available for that battle.

Mr. Victor Yates: I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be sympathetic to this new Clause. I tried to study his facial expression while it has been discussed and I have an uneasy feeling that he is not sympathetic. For that reason, I intervene to recall that he has said, both inside and outside the House, that he will not use these powers except in case of emergency. I think that I once asked him whether he could confirm that. I cannot, therefore, understand why he cannot consider this Clause in the sense that, once twelve months have elapsed, he will have a view about what kind of emergency there has been and can discuss with the House of Commons the suitability or otherwise of the Bill being continued.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) referred to the fact that this was, after all, a temporary Measure. I do not like these references to "temporary" and "permanent". I have been opposed for sixteen years in the House of Commons to the continuance of compulsory military service. I remember that the late Neville Chamberlain was the first one to introduce compulsory military training in time of peace. He said then, "We


know what the Opposition feel about this, but it is only temporary." That was in April, 1939, and compulsory military service has continued for twenty-one years.
I remember that when we were asking one of my right hon. Friends in the Labour Government whether National Service was to be permanent, he said that "permanent" was a very difficult word to define and added:
I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for
me.
I am suspicious of the use of the word "temporary".
I think that the Minister genuinely meant it when he said that this provision was only to meet an emergency. In that case, will he not look sympathetically at the new Clause, which simply says that the Bill shall expire at the end of twelve months from the date of its coming into force, unless it is continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act? The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) said that that would tie the Minister's hands. I do not understand how it could. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking for something to meet a temporary emergency, why cannot he ask for it to be continued after twelve months, if he wishes to do so? He could even introduce a new Bill.

Mr. W. Yates: Before we get tied up together on this business, the answer is that if the Secretary of State gives an assurance to me and the rest of the Committee that he intends to introduce another Bill in the place of this to deal with the Reserve Forces and their call-up, I am prepared to accept his word and allow this Bill to go through without this new Clause. If he cannot give that assurance, that is a different matter.

Mr. V. Yates: I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman could say now, without experience of the Bill over twelve months, whether he will be able to introduce another Bill. But I would have thought that it would safeguard the view of the hon. Member for The Wrekin if the Bill were continued for only twelve months in order to meet this emergency.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke of the interruption in industry. National Service itself is cumbersome and

employers of labour have found it extremely difficult to deal with the inconveniences which result from it. While one understands that the Bill may be necessary in an emergency, why is it necessary to continue it after the emergency?
I am very disappointed that we have not had a clearer answer to our questions. The Secretary of State thinks that the Bill is only temporary. As he has practically got the Committee stage of the Bill, I appeal to him at least to meet us some way on this issue and undertake that as soon as the emergency is passed, if there is an emergency, he will not continue with these powers to meet a situation which is not likely to arise.

Mr. Kershaw: I apologise to the Committee for not having been here during the whole of the discussion of the new Clause. The answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) is that in so far as the Bill is compulsory its effect is temporary, and that in so far as it is permanent it deals only with volunteers, who need not be caught unless they wish to be.

Mr. Paget: What the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has said makes the case for the new Clause. I accept that the position in regard to Clauses 1 and 2 is different from that with regard to Clause 3. If the right hon. Gentleman were prepared to put down an Amendment on Report dealing with this matter as the new Clause proposes, but confined to Clauses I and 2, that would satisfy me. I agree that Clause 3, which deals with the "Ever-readies", deals with volunteers and is permanent by its nature.
As the hon. Member for Stroud has pointed out, Clauses 1 and 2 are temporary. That being the case, they should come to an end. They should, therefore, be included in the temporary legislation that comes to an end when it is no longer needed. That is a very good reason for including them in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which we consider each year in order to see whether certain legislation is still necessary.
It is admitted that Clauses 1 and 2 impinge on the principles of civil liberty. It is admitted that they operate arbitrarily and unfairly on a section of the


population chosen at random. Is it unreasonable that Parliament should say to the Government, "Since you are doing this, we should have an annual opportunity to consider the way in which you are operating these provisions, and to raise on the Floor of the House any grievances which our constituents may bring us"? That is all we are asking.
Of their nature, the first two Clauses can operate only for four years. Is it unreasonable that we should ask for four opportunities during that period, when we discuss the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, to raise grievances and call upon the Minister for an account of the way in which he is operating this invasion of civil liberty? It may be necessary, but it is none the less an invasion of liberty. I submit that that is a reasonable thing to ask, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that between now and Report he will consider the matter and put down a Clause which will include in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at least those two Clauses which are, of their very nature, temporary provisions, but which affect civil liberty.

Mr. Profumo: I have listened very carefully to the debate, from the moving of the new Clause. In spite of the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) thinks that I have pre-judged the issue, I certainly wanted to collect the voices of the Committee. I admit that I started with certain pre-determined views, having thought over the matter very carefully. The Committee may agree, as a matter of principle, that it is not a good legislative practice to have more laws dependent upon annual review than is absolutely necessary. Apart from anything else, it takes up the time of Parliament, which is already grossly overcrowded.
It seems to me that the responsibility of Parliament is to judge whether a piece of legislation is good or bad. If it is bad it must be turned out, but if it is not bad, and is deemed to be necessary, I do not believe that, as a general principle, it is a good idea to say that because things may change every year, the legislation concerned should come before Parliament so that hon. Members can scrutinise the way in which the Gov

ernment are carrying out that legislation. Every hon. Member knows that there are ample opportunities for a Minister to be called to order. There are all sorts of Parliamentary checks and balances. As a matter of principle, therefore, I cannot agree that because this is a piece of contentious legislation, if it passes through all its stages there is any requirement for its being brought back to Parliament for annual review.
The only justification for making legislation subject to annual review is in order that Parliament can decide whether the requirements which led up to that legislation still exist—that is fair—and can protect those who are affected by the Measure. Let us apply those tests to the various Clauses.
10.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) spoke of this as a temporary expedient, or measure, or something of that sort. I have never said that it was a temporary expedient. The requirements of Clause 1 are because of an existing problem. The requirements of Clause 2 are not so temporary. They stretch into the distance and as far as the time when there are no part-time National Service men. Clause 3, in my view—I take it that the hon. Member has also agreed—may well go on for ever and a day. It is for Parliament to decide that in the future. But it would be wrong to consider this as a temporary expedient.
As I said during the Second Reading debate, the reason far Clause 1 is the requirement for trained men in order to maintain B.A.O.R. roughly at its present level for the foreseeable future. There might have been more point in this Motion and the proposed new Clause if the Bill had been passed through Parliament before Christmas. But, as it is now, a review in 12 months from the time when the Bill becomes law, would fall at a time when the provisions in Clause 1 will largely have ceased to have any practical effect. So the idea of bringing the thing back for scrutiny in a year's time is not all that necessary from the point of view of Clause 1. It would be well after the time that the men who had been retained would have started to flow out of the Army.
With regard to Clause 2, I have told the Committee that it is unlikely that


we shall have to consider recalling any part-time National Service men until the last retained National Service man has left—in effect, not before 1963. But if this Clause is to have any effect, we must know continuously in advance that we can call on these reservists were tension suddenly to mount, and while the Regular Army strength for 1963 was still near its minimum target. There would therefore be no way in which Parliament could better judge the requirements for this at the end of 1962 and the beginning of 1963 than at the present moment.
There is always the danger, which in my position I must guard against, that when looking at things again at the end of 1962 we might find that the tension had temporarily eased. But that would be no good reason for terminating powers under the Bill, because no one can know for certain then, any more than now, what the future holds. Incidentally, the powers of retention and recall under Clauses 1 and 2 are self-eliminating, without bringing them back to Parliament. Hon. Members have recognised that in their speeches. The powers in respect of retention will expire six months after the last National Service man completes his two years' liability for service. Those in respect of recall will, with certain minor exceptions, expire in 1966.
I now come to Clause 3. The Committee would agree that as the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve is designed for a long term period, and as it will be a voluntary force, there is no need whatever for the members of this volunteer reserve to be protected by an annual Parliamentary Review. Those are the reasons advanced for the new Clause. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said that I had the power by the stroke of my pen, to call up about 60,000 men. I think that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) also felt that that was so. I must correct the right hon. Gentlemen and put this matter into its proper perspective. I have no power, by the stroke of a pen, to call up all those people without a Proclamation, except in certain circumstances. This is one of the major reasons for the Bill. The only people whom I would have the power to call up by the stroke of a pen would be the 15,000 people in the "Ever-readies"

because—this is very important—the other two bodies of pre-proclamation reserves making up the 60,000 are voluntary reserves who have volunteered either to be in the A.E.R.1 or for the Regular Army. They volunteered under the express understanding that they would be recalled only in the case of
imminent national danger or great emergency.
That may be interpreted as, had we wanted to call up some reservists without a Proclamation last August, we should have had to be quite sure that the situation could have been interpreted as being an imminent national danger or great emergency, before the Secretary of State and the Government would have had the right to call up those men, without being in danger of a breach of the contract under which these people volunteered and are liable to be recalled.
The whole purpose of this new reserve is that they will come in with their eyes open, knowing that for the bounty they get, if the Government of the day believes that tension has increased to a stage at which they have to stop it by the deterrent of more manpower, these men can be called up. I do not want the Committee to take an exaggerated view of the number of reserves which can be called up.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whom he can call up? Does it mean that he wants only "Ever-readies" called up?

Mr. Profumo: I think we can consider only the people covered by this Bill. I am trying to give the Committee an accurate picture of the sort of reasons for which we would call up the "Ever-readies". I am also pointing out that it is wrong to think that all the Reserves can be called up under this provision. 'The only reason for calling up a new class of reserves is that they can be called up only when the Government feel there is an emergency sufficiently strong to warrant a deterrent by increasing the number in the Armed Forces.
The right hon. Member said that I had unlimited power, but there is not unlimited power, as he knows well. Each year there is a perfectly good check. All the Bill does is to give general permissive authority to the Government. Every year Parliament has a


perfectly good check in being able to refuse to vote the money by which we can pay any of the people covered by the Bill. If we were to give effect to what the right hon. Member for Basset-law, the right hon. Member for South Shields, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) want to do we ought not to do what is suggested in this new Clause. We could not do it this way.
We would have to put into the Bill the fact that the Secretary of State could not call these people up unless he reported to the House of Commons before doing so. It would not serve the purpose of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw merely to make us bring this Measure back once a year. That would not stop the signing of a Proclamation during a Recess. The right hon. Member and others would not be able to get what they have said they want by this new Clause. I should be hoodwinking the right hon. Member if I agreed to accept this new Clause and he thought that he had got what he wanted. This is something quite different.
I know what he has in mind, but it would not be achieved by this new Clause. I must look after his interests as well as the interests of other hon. Members and refuse to bargain. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not be condescending."] It is not condescending. I wish to help the right hon. Member. He has been in my job and we know what we are talking about. This would not suffice for what the right hon. Member has in mind.
The hon. Member for Islington, East said that the House had the right—I suppose he also meant the duty—to see that the Secretary of State was dealing fairly with all those concerned. Of course I agree with that, but the House also has that right under the National Service Act and that Act does not have to be brought before Parliament for review every year. It would not be best dealt with under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
The hon. Member knows that the way to watch me, or anyone in my position, is to put down Questions, to raise matters on the Adjournment and to write letters to the newspapers. That is the

way to see that people under the National Service Act are being properly looked after. It would not serve that purpose to bring this Measure back once a year.

Mr. Fletcher: I was not suggesting that this was in exclusion of the other Parliamentary remedies. I was putting it forward as a desirable addition.

Mr. Profumo: As I explained at the beginning of my speech, I believe there are other remedies which are sufficient without taking up the time of Parliament further by something which would not achieve the objects the hon. Member has in mind. The hon. Member said that we ought not to be allowed to do this without a check, but we can call people up under the Army Reserve Act. The A.E.R., and the Regular Army Reserve, Category A can be called up and I have authority to do that under the Army Reserve Act. That does not have to be brought back to Parliament every year. It does not come under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. What I am doing is nothing new, fresh or horrifying to this Committee in suggesting that it should be permanent legislation, if the House wishes to put it on the Statute Book.
The right hon. Member for South Shields made great play at one moment about Kuwait and said "Well, the other side did not turn up." But why did not the other side turn up? They did not turn up because the Executive had the power to take action speedily and send our people to the spot to stop General Kassem from taking any action. I do not want to make any more of it, except to say that I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman, who spoke with great lucidity and feeling, to get away with something that I believe was the very reverse of what he intended.
That is one reason why we must have this power. He also said that if we do not make this self-limiting, and it goes through as at present, there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State during the long Parliamentary Recess signing something so that these people can be called up, without Parliament being able to do anything about it.
Last summer, the Prime Minister told the House that he had at one moment considered whether he should declare an


emergency, and he decided not to do so. If the Prime Minister could have declared an emergency without the House being recalled at the time—

Mr. Bellenger: Oh, no; he could not do that.

Mr. Profumo: He could have declared a state of emergency, constitutionally, and, naturally, the House would have had to be called back almost at once. All I am asking for here is the power, if necessary in a Recess, to take action, and then, through the usual channels, if the House wishes to come back, arrangements can be made. I put into the Bill, with my own hand, that I wished to report to Parliament. Therefore, I feel that it is absolutely necessary that we should not be limited by annual debate, but that we should put a law on the Statute Book which will allow the Government to call up these people if the situation warrants it. After all, they are being paid for retention, and I believe that that is absolutely essential.
I am very sorry indeed that I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) the undertaking he wants. I do not want him

to vote against me. If he does so tonight, it will be the first time. He has referred, quite rightly, to the fact that I have said that we are having a general review of the reserves to see if we can bring all reserves up to date to meet the modern challenge. I have not told the House anything about bringing in new legislation for them. It may be that it does not need new legislation. May be, I have the powers already to alter and change things so that they will suit.

At any rate, at this moment, I have no idea what that review will bring. I cannot tell. All I did know was that this stuck out a mile as being necessary, and, as I was coming to Parliament for legislation, I put it in the Bill. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that I had not been able to accept any Opposition Amendments. That is because this is a good bit of legislation, not because I have been difficult. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Clause, either.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 95, Noes 169.

Division No. 61.]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Millan, Bruce


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Milne, Edward


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holman, Percy
Moody, A. S.


Blackburn, F.
Holt, Arthur
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Bowles, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Parker, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pavitt, Laurence


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St.Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, James
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Cliffe, Michael
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cronin, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Snow, Julian


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
King, Dr. Horace
Stonehouse, John


Diamond, John
Lawsen, George
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Thornton, Ernest


Fletcher, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David
McInnes, James
Warbey, William


Grey, Charles
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Willey, Frederick


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, william (West Fife)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)



Hannan, William
Manuel, A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mapp, Charles
Mr. Redhead and Mr. McCann.


Hayman, F. H.
Mendelson, J. J.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gurden, Harold
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Aitken, W. T.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pitman, Sir James


Allason, James
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Atkins, Humphrey
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Barlow, Sir John
Hay, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Barter, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Batsford, Brian
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Berkeley, Humphry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hobson, John
Rawilnson, Peter


Bingham, R. M.
Hocking, Philip N.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bishop, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Renton, David


Black, Sir Cyril
Hollingworth, John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bossom, Clive
Hornby, R. P.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Box, Donald
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Russell, Ronald


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brewis, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Bromley-Davenport Lt.- Col. Sir Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, M.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shepherd, William


Bullard, Denys
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smithers, Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stevens, Geoffrey


Chataway, Christopher
Kirk, Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Leburn, Gilmour
Stodart, J. A.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cleaver, Leonard
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Cole, Norman
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Collard, Richard
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Cooper, A. E.
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Corfield, F. V.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Costain, A. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Craddock, Sir Beresford
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Turner, Colin


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Curran, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Vane, W. M. F.


Dance, James
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Deedes, W. F.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, Douglas
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Walker, Peter


Elliott, R. W. ( Nwcasle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wall, Patrick


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Finlay, Graeme
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton
Whitelaw, William


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
Morgan, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gardner, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wise, A. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Neave, Airey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woollam, John


Goodhew, Victor
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Worsley, Marcus


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Green, Alan
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Mr. Gordon Campbell and




Mr. McLaren.

Schedule agreed to.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to Order [25th January].

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Orders of the Day — PETROL STATION, WILMINGTON (PLANNING APPLICATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M. Hamilton.]

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mathew: I am grateful for this opportunity of drawing attention to the case of Mr. Furneaux, a constituent, living at Wilmington, who has been refused planning permission for an agricultural and engineering workshop, with petrol facilities, for his customers only in that village. He has, in effect, been refused permission to carry on his business as a motor engineer and now faces not only the loss of his livelihood but complete financial disaster. I should add that Mr. Furneaux has five children, of whom two are still his dependants.
I make no apology for inviting my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to reply, since this is a case in which the Ministry of Transport, rather than the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, has the final word, and a case in which an ordinary citizen, completely unbacked by the immense power of any financial interest of the big oil companies, or anything like that, is about to founder in which I might call the entanglements of the jungle of our administrative law.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the case has a long history. Mr. Furneaux has been in the motor engineering industry and in the heavy engineering industry all his life. In 1956 he became permanently disabled as a result of spinal trouble. He then came down to Devon and settled in the village of Wilmington, which is quite a small village on the A.373 trunk road, half way between Honiton and Axminster. There he opened a small engineering works and, within four years, had built from nothing at all a good small business—an admirable example of private enterprise, and of determination in the face of adversity.
Unfortunately, the ownership of the premises changed hands and, for reasons into which I need not now go because they are irrelevant to the case, he no longer had access to the main road.

The premises are now only useful to him as a store, and are used for that purpose. Faced with that threat to his livelihood, Mr. Furneaux immediately purchased an acre of land nearby, hoping to continue his flourishing small business. His sole source of income at present is carrying out, on the premises of his customers, repairs to tractors, agricultural machinery and engines, and so forth. In 1960 he had to refuse a contract worth some £300 or £400 a year because he had no premises of his own on which to carry out the work and was unable to provide oil or petrol. As my hon. Friend will know, my constituent has been applying and negotiating for permission for the last three years.
The site of his new land, which consists of an acre of grassland and orchard, is near the end of the village. There is a depth of 260 feet and a frontage of 160 feet. It lies between gradual slopes where the road goes downhill towards the east—to Axminster. The roadway here is 22 feet wide. I can, from my own knowledge of the village, confirm that there is an undoubted need for petrol for farmers and other local inhabitants. There used to be petrol facilities in the village, but there are none now. In my opinion, there is no danger to vehicles leaving the western access of the proposed workshops, there being a clear view for 200 yards to the east and 130 yards to the west. Vehicles leaving the eastern access have visibility for 202 yards to the west and 161 yards to the east.
Mr. Furneaux made application for planning permission for workshops and petrol in 1959. This was refused. An appeal was made, and that, too, was refused. The inspector recommended that the site was physically suitable and that from a planning and strictly aesthetic point of view it was the least detrimental site in the village. He did, however, express the opinion that the said lengths of visibility were insufficient to ensure reasonable safety. I do not want to dwell on that aspect unduly, but I would say that so far as I have been able to ascertain there has been no serious accident there. The only incidents of which I know have been breakdowns of vehicles in the village.


There is no speed limit set by the Ministry and there is no white line. Both of those one would expect were it such a dangerous place.
The inspector found as a fact that the local farmers required the services of a workshop and supplies of fuel oil, but he thought that a trunk road was not suitable for the purpose. I do not think that anybody who knows the village can find any more suitable place which would serve the landward area round the village owing to the nature of the country. In short, the inspector, although finding that there was a local need, did not feel that he was justified in allowing the appeal in what he considered to be a place potentially dangerous to road safety.
Mr. Furneaux then made another application for an engineering workshop alone on the site. This was granted subject to the access conforming to conditions. However, the local authority refused permission for the provision of petrol pumps, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that the provision of petrol and oil for a business of this sort was economically essential.
On 1st January, 1960, Mr. Furneaux applied for permission in respect of
engineering repairs and welding to tractors, machinery, engines and road transport.
In April, planning permission was received from the Honiton Rural District Council in respect of the engineering workshop, on condition that the access was in accordance with the plan accompanying the Minister's letter of 31st March of that year. Petrol pumps were refused, and Mr. Furneaux then gave notice of appeal and tried to negotiate with the local authority. These negotiations were carried out between the applicant's solicitors and the Devon County Planning Department.
Some four months after the meeting between them the Devon County Council wrote saying that they had had to wait to hear from the Ministry of Transport, and in that letter it was said:
The Divisional Road Engineer has been seeking advice regarding the question of siting petrol pumps at the rear of the proposed agricultural workshop and a condition that such petrol pumps should not be advertised in any way.

The opinion expressed in the letter was that it would be difficult to frame and enforce such a condition, although the Clerk to the County Council was of the opinion that a condition regarding advertising could be imposed and enforced.
The letter continued:
The Minister of Transport has the last word in the terms of his direction and the Divisional Road Engineer considers that any undertaking which the applicant is prepared to give to limit the use of the pumps to workshop customers only cannot be made legally binding.
Mr. Furneaux got in touch with me and I wrote to the then Minister of Housing and Local Government in January, 1961, and received a reply from the then Parliamentary Secretary, which included the following words:
Our lawyers think, however, that a suitable condition might be framed to limit sales of petrol to those incidental to the repairs of vehicles but this could only be tested in the courts. The control of advertisement would be best effected under the advertisement regulations and not by conditions proposed on a planning permission.
I wrote to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and received a reply, once again, from the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in which he said that my hon. Friend had pointed out that the imposition of conditions was the concern of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government rather than the Ministry of Transport and that he would, of course, be guided by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government lawyers. Clearly they had already given an opinion on this point.
Mr. Furneaux's solicitors then got in touch with the County Council again. The Clerk wrote in June, 1961, as follows:
Whilst the planning authorities' sympathy for your client extends to an earnest desire to negotiate with him, they are completely bound by the direction of the Ministry of Transport.
This direction was given in Article 7 (2) of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1950. Here I again quote the County Clerk,
… to which I think the Parliamentary Secretaries of the two Ministries have not given their attention to the exchanges.
He adds that the local planning authority is compelled to give effect to the directions of the Ministry of Transport.
It was then suggested that Mr. Furneaux should appeal once again and get a legal decision. He consulted his solicitors and he consulted me, and both the solicitors and I strongly advised against this, mainly on financial grounds and in view of his steadily deteriorating financial position and of the long and rather unhappy history of his efforts to earn his livelihood and to continue his business.
In conclusion, I am asking my hon. Friend to look closely at this case yet again. He will readily agree. I think that it is a case involving real human hardship. Mr. Furneaux is in real difficulty. He is a man who has had his moments of adversity and who has shown great courage and enterprise in getting on to his feet in a small business. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is a case in which an ordinary citizen, unbacked by large financial resources and by large companies of any sort, has been caught up in the tangle of administrative law and has found the greatest difficulty in making his way through that tangle. I ask the Minister to see whether there is not some means whereby he can advise the Minister of Housing and Local Government that a limited grant to meet the local needs in Wilmington for a workshop of this sort, with unadvertised oil and petrol pumps perhaps at the back of the workshops, should be made.
If it is said to be dangerous, I point out that there would already be precautions in the village by way of a speed limit and a double white line. I submit that the decision as it stands is ineffective and futile for two reasons. First, the grant has been made for a workshop, which would, of course, involve the entry and exit of tractors and other vehicles in any event, and it is those tractors and vehicles for which the facilities for supplying oil and petrol are sought. Any increase in the existing danger—if there is danger—is therefore negligible.
The second reason is that many years ago there were two kerb-side petrol pumps in Wilmington. These pumps were in position until 1959. That site is immediately opposite Mr. Furneaux's property. There are, therefore, established user-rights for a petrol filling station, with two pumps and a kerb

side filling station already in existence. There is no doubt that if Mr. Furneaux had the money he could buy the land opposite and re-start that filling station without any difficulty at all—and there is great need for such facilities.
I ask my hon. Friend to look at the situation as it is. It is a sort of "Alice in Wonderland" delirium of red tape, in which Mr. Furneaux is caught. I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that it is extremely unjust that the ordinary citizen, the small man, should, through the complicated administration of the various Acts of Parliament and instructions from Ministries, be so frustrated in earning his living and running a small but progressive business in what many of us like to see as a progressive property-owning democracy.

10.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) was kind enough in raising this subject on the Adjournment tonight to apologise to me for having brought me here to answer. I assure him that I have no complaint against him for having done so. We in the House all know how assiduous in the interests of his constituents my hon. Friend is, and tonight he has given one more example. If I may say so, I personally deplore the insulting and quite unjustified attack made upon my hon. Friend in the Daily Express this morning. It was quite untrue.
Before turning to the details of the case my hon. Friend has raised, I can, I think, help the House by putting on record the considerations which we have in mind when planning applications are in question relating to development alongside a trunk road.
A local planning authority is required to consult our divisional road engineer before it grants permission for that sort of development, and its decision on the application has to follow any direction restricting consent which the divisional road engineer, acting on behalf of the Minister, may choose to give. He does this, of course, under Article 7 (2) of the General Development Order, 1950. But the planning authority, if it wishes, may add further conditions to any


which are prescribed by the divisional road engineer, and it may itself refuse planning permission whether or not it has consulted him. The actual decision on any planning application is the direct responsibility of the local planning authority, and the Minister has no statutory right to intervene once a decision has been given.
As a rule, local planning authorities are required to decide planning applications within two months. If a trunk road is involved, this period is extended to three months. Unless an applicant agrees to an extension of time, he can appeal to the Minister of Housing and Local Government if a decision has not been given within the time required. When an application is referred to the divisional road engineer under the Town and Country Planning Acts, he considers each case entirely on its merits within the framework of the policy of the Ministry as laid down for the protection of our trunk road system. This policy is to restrict frontage development along main trunk roads so far as is reasonable because the provision of new accesses or the increased use of existing accesses on trunk roads can cause interference with safety and the free flow of traffic as a result of vehicles moving in and out of the traffic stream and parking on the carriageway.
We give guidance on general policy to our divisional road engineers but we do not normally intervene in their consideration of individual applications. The reason for this is that, if planning permission is in fact refused, an applicant has a statutory right of appeal to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. If he exercises this right, that Department may consult us on the highway aspects of the case after all the relevant facts have been ascertained by public inquiry or by the statements of the parties concerned. We at the Ministry then seek to give an impartial and considered opinion, without having in any way prejudged the issue before all the facts are available.
I turn now to the physical background of the present case. As my hon. Friend said, Wilmington is a small and rather straggling village on the A373 road between Honiton and Axminster. I do not take quite the same optimistic view as does my hon. Friend about the safety

of the road. It is only 22 ft. wide. There is a slope at this point from west to east, and the site where it is sought to build the filling station is on a gradual curve. There is no speed limit, but this means that traffic speeds are usually rather high. We estimate that about 4,000 vehicles a day use the road. The number is as high as that.
There are already in the vicinity no less than four petrol filling stations. On the south side of the road there is one 1¼ miles to the west and another 4½ miles to the east of Wilmington. On the north side of the road there is one 3¼ miles to the west and another 2½ miles to the east of the village. Since 1955, on no less than six occasions applications have been made for permission to build or develop petrol filling stations in and around Wilmington.
In all these cases, our divisional road engineer has directed refusal on road safety grounds. There are three main reasons. First, as I have said when talking about the general doctrine, there is the risk of vehicles drawing off or on to or across the trunk road and so interfering with the flow and safety of the traffic. Secondly, there is no doubt that the visibility is not good. I am told that between 300 and 400 feet is the maximum visibility that a vehicle passing along the trunk road could possibly have of the site. Thirdly, as I have indicated, there are in the vicinity four petrol filling stations already. When our divisional road engineer directed the local planning authority to refuse planning permission, in each of the six cases the police and the county surveyor of Devon agreed with his view.
In two of the cases, appeals were lodged and local inquiries were held. Both appeals were turned down by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. One of these appeals, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, was made by Mr. Furneaux in October, 1958. In January, 1960, he made a fresh application and on this occasion he applied for planning permission for a workshop with petrol and oil supplies. As we have heard, he is an agricultural engineer and is conducting a business at the site.
In the light of the safety considerations that I have mentioned, and also the thin evidence of need for a new


petrol filling station in the district, which is already fairly well supplied, our divisional road engineer directed that the planning authority should refuse its consent, and accordingly it did so. On that occasion, Mr. Furneaux did not appeal. Instead, his solicitors opened negotiations with the planning authority and with the divisional road engineer. On 21st July last year, a meeting took place on the site between all the parties. To me, what exactly took place is a little obscure, but I understand that the situation was broadly as follows.
Mr. Furneaux and his representatives offered to submit to two conditions if planning permission would be granted. The first condition was that the pumps should be located in such a position that they would not be easily visible from the road, if visible at all; and the second, that the sales of petrol and oil would be made only to those people who brought their vehicles there for repair. A third point was raised, and on this a similar undertaking was given by Mr. Furneaux, through his representatives, that no advertisements would be displayed to the effect that petrol was on sale.
The difficulty faces me as to whether any or all of these conditions to which Mr. Furneaux is prepared to submit could be validly enforced. My hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of my right hon. Friend and of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is all very well saying that an applicant is prepared to submit to conditions, and it may well be that one can draw up legally binding conditions, but enforcement of conditions

is sometimes difficult. We have to bear in mind not only the personal circumstances of the present applicant, Mr. Furneaux, with whom we have every sympathy in his difficulties, but it might well be that in course of time he might sell or assign his business to some other person, who might be in an entirely different personal position. Therefore, whatever we decide here must run with the land, to use a lawyer's expression that my hon. Friend will remember from his conveyancing days.
I am in no doubt that any condition which was imposed relating to the advertising of petrol sales would be extremely difficult to enforce. I am not so certain that it would be as difficult to enforce a condition attached to the planning permission related to the siting of the petrol pumps.
In the light of what my hon. Friend has said tonight and the cogent and moderate case he has deployed on behalf of his constituent, what I should like to do is to have another look at the whole matter. I cannot give any further undertaking than that.
If there is a way in which we can help this man I would certainly like to do it, because I have sympathy with him, but I cannot say tonight that we will find a way through the somewhat difficult legal problems. We will approach any fresh assessment of the case with goodwill, and I hope that with that undertaking from me my hon. Friend will feel that this debate has been worth while.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.